IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No: 17622 of 2001 BETWEEN: 1 M/s. Sreenivasa Beer & Wines Rep by its Sole Prop G. Ramanjaneyulu, Licence No.268/98-99, Rayachoty Post & Mandal, Cuddapah District. 2 M/s Haritha Wines Rep by its Sole Proprietor, Y. Janardhana Reddy, L.No.387/98-9, Rayachoty Post & Mandal, Cuddapah District. 3 M/s. Vijaya Lakshmi Wines Rep by its Prop S. Venkata Kumar Reddy, L.No.375/98-99, Rayachoty Post & Mandal, Cuddapah District. 4 M/s. Veerabhadra Wines, Rep by its Prop M. Eswaramma, L.No.386/98-99, Rayachoty Post & Mandal, Cuddapah District. 5 M/s Shirdi Sai Wines Rep by its Prop P. Venkata Prasad L.No.388/98-99, Rayachoty Post & Mandal, Cuddapah District. 6 M/s Sri Krishna Balaji Wines, Rep by its Proprietor K.Gangi Reddy, L.No.280/98-99, Rayachoti Post & Mandal, Cuddapah District. 7 M/s Sri Balaji Wines Rep by its Prop N. Rama Mohan Reddy, L.No.384/98-99, Rayachoty Post & Mandal, Cuddapah District. ... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Prohibition & Excises Superintendent, Cuddapah, Cuddapah District. 2 The Commissioner of Proh. & Excise, A.P., Hyderabad. 3 The Government of A.P. Rep by its Principal Secretary ‘ Revenue (Ex.III) Department, Secretariat Bldgs. Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction, declaring the action of the respondent in insisting the petitioners to pay a sum of Rs.7,20,000/- each towards annual licence fee for the excise year. 2000-2001 in respect of the Form-IL-24 Licenced held by the even though they are liable to pay a sum of Rs.3,75,000/- each towards the said annual licence fee as illegal and arbitrary and consequentially direct the respondent to refund the excess licence fee direct the respondents to refund the excess licence fee collected from the petitioners to them forthwith and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.M.CHANDRASEKHAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR PROHIBITION & EXCISE The Court made the following: ORDER: When the matter is taken up for hearing neither the petitioners appear nor there is any representation on their behalf. It appears that the petitioners are not interested in pursuing the matter. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed for default. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ V. ESWARAIAH, J April 22, 2008 DSK