THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.4857 OF 2010 Dated 3rd March, 2010 Between: Dasari Buchaiah and three others …Petitioners And The Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise And another …Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Sri A.Ravinder Counsel for the respondents: G.P for Prohibition and Excise The Court made the following ORDER: The petitioners are licensees of A4 licence, under which they are permitted to sell liquor in retail. They filed this writ petition for a direction to the respondents to grant remission of proportionate licence fee for the period from 01.07.2008 to 10.07.2008, during which they were allegedly not granted licences. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that though the petitioners have orally represented before respondent No.2, the latter has not responded to the said representation. In my opinion, the plea raised in paragraph 5 of the affidavit on the alleged oral representation is very vague. It is not stated when such a representation has been made. At any rate, in a matter of this nature, it is incumbent on the petitioners to submit a written representation to the authority concerned referring to specific facts on the basis of which they are claiming remission. In the absence of such a representation, the competent authority cannot be said to have acted arbitrarily in not considering the representation of the petitioners. In this view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of by giving liberty to the petitioners to make a written representation to respondent No.2 stating the grounds on which they are claiming remission. If such a representation is made, respondent No.2 shall consider and dispose of the same, within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of such representation. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 3rd March, 2010 vrn