IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO :20438 of 2009 Between: G. Venkatesh Goud alias G. Venkateshwarlu ..... PETITIONER AND 1. The Commissioner, Prohibition & Excise, Government of A.P., Hyderabad and others. .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following : HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO :20438 of 2009 ORDER: Questioning the establishment of a wine shop by the 5th respondent herein, the petitioner herein approached this Court and filed WP No.16889 of 2008. Similarly, the adjacent wine shop owners also filed two writ petitions viz., W.P.No.21387 of 2008 and W.P.No.21910 of 2008. A Division Bench of this Court disposed of the said writ petitions observing as follows: “It cannot, however, be lost sight of that respondents 7 and 8 have been carrying on business in the present premises, on licenses being granted to them, from 1.7.2008 onwards. Asking them to forthwith relocate their licenced premises, beyond a distance of 100 meters from the educational institution, would result in their suffering grave hardship. We, therefore, consider it appropriate to grant respondents 7and 8 three months time from today to relocate their licenced premises elsewhere in conformity with Rule 27(1) of the Excise Rules, 2005. It is made clear that, in case respondents 7 and 8 fail to do so within the aforementioned period, it is open to the respondent authorities to proceed against them in accordance with law”. Thereafter, the 5th respondent, it appears, made an application for shifting of her business premises from the previous location to an adjacent location, which is in the upstairs. When the matter was under consideration, the petitioner approached the Commissioner and filed his objections stating that the 5th respondent shall not be permitted to carry on wine business even in the upstairs for the reason that the school is adjacent to the said licenced premises. However, apprehending that a retail licence in Form A-4 may be issued, the petitioner approached this Court and filed the present writ petition. Having considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader, this Court is of the view that this writ petition can be disposed of, without expressing any views for the reason that the objection petition filed by the petitioner is pending before the Commissioner. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the Commissioner, who is shown as the 1st respondent herein, to consider the said objections filed by the petitioner and thereafter, take appropriate action as to whether the 5th respondent can be permitted to carry on business in the proposed licenced premises. No order as to costs. _______________________________ Justice Gopala Krishna Tamada Date:23rd September, 2009 Note: Issue C.C. tomorrow (BO) Nn. HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO :20438 of 2009 23rd September, 2009