IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.13615 of 2010 Between: Smt.P. Surekha ... PETITIONER a n d The Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Government of A.P., Nampally, Hyderabad and others … RESPONDENTS ORDER: This writ petition has been filed by Smt.P. Surekha with a prayer to issue writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate direction declaring the action of the Superintendent, Prohibition and Excise, Rajendernagar, Ranga Reddy District – second respondent in not taking any steps to cancel the licence of M/s.Kanaka Durga Bar and Restaurant – third respondent as arbitrary and illegal. 2. The case of the petitioner as set out in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition in brief as:- The petitioner is the co-owner of the premises bearing H.No.4-2-1098, situated at Anantagiri Road, Vikarabad, R.R. District. She is no other than the co-sister of the other co-owners. It is her grievance that A. Vishnuvardhan Reddy who is the Proprietor of M/s.Kanaka Durga Bar and Restaurant forged her signatures on rental deed and obtained licence from the Commissioner, Prohibition and Excise – first respondent to run a Bar in the said premises. She claims to have submitted representations to the respondents 1 and 2 and there being no action on their part, she approached this Court invoking jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the writ petitioner and perused the material brought on record. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents 1 and 2 are bound to verify the rental deed in view of the objections raised by the petitioner herein while renewing the licence for the excise year 2010-2011. 5. I have gone through the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. Dispute between the petitioner and the other co-owners is essentially a civil dispute which the petitioner has to settle by approaching the Civil Court. If the petitioner claims that her signature is forged on rental deed, she is also at liberty to initiate criminal proceedings against the persons responsible for forging her signature on rental deed. 6. In view of the facts and circumstances, invoking jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is misconceived and accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed at the admission stage. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________________ B. SESHASAYANA REDDY, J June 16, 2010. PN THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.13615 of 2010 June 16, 2010