IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.13153 of 2009 Between: 1 M/s. Sri Lakshmi Wines, Ananthapur rep. by its Proprietor D. Varalakshmi, W/o. D.V. Naidu R/o. Flat No.303, 304, Hima Apartments, Ananthapur District. 2 M/s. M.S. Wines, Ananthapur, rep. by its Proprietor M.S. Prasad, S/o. Bala Rangappa R/o. Ananthapur, Ananthapur District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise, Government of Andhra Pradesh at Excise Bhavan, J.N. Road, Nampally, Hyderabad. 2 The Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise, Ananthapur Division at Ananthapur. 3 The Prohibition & Excise Superintendent, Ananthapur District, Ananthapur. 4 M/s. Mayuri Bar & Restaurant, D.No.8-99, Court Road, Near Overbridge, Mpl.Elec. Div.No.20 rep. by its Proprietor, K. Shiva kumar, S/o. K.Venu Gopal Aged 32 Yrs, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No.1-4-373, HLC Colony, Ananthapur District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners:MR.B.SAI RAM GOUD Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 3:AGP FOR PROHIBITION & EXCISE The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed questioning the action of respondent No.1 in proposing to permit respondent No.4 to shift the bar and restaurant at a place where the petitioners are running their liquor shops under Form A-4 licenses. Having carefully considered the averments contained in the affidavit and heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, I am of the view that the writ petition is premature. The petitioners filed this writ petition only on apprehension that respondent No.1 may permit shifting of the business of respondent No.4. They have pleaded that they filed objection petitions on 24.06.2009 and 29.06.2009 before respondent Nos.1 to 3. I do not find any reason for respondent Nos.1 to 3 to ignore the objection petitions filed by the petitioners before permitting respondent No.4 to shift the business. In this view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction to respondent Nos.1 to 3 to objectively consider the objections of the petitioners stated to have been filed by them to the proposed shifting of the business by respondent No.4 strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968 and the extant rules governing the businesses of the petitioners and respondent No.4. If the petitioners feel aggrieved by any order passed by respondent Nos.1 to 3, they shall be free to question the same by availing appropriate remedy. Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of main petition, WPMP.No.17048 of 2009 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 3rd JULY, 2009. Note: issue c.c. in three (3) days. kvni