IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 25040 of 2008 Between: K.R. Gandhi S/o. Chandraiah R/o. H.No. 1-99/2, Anand Nagar, Bodduppal, Ghatkesar, R.R. District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commissioner of Proh. & Excise Nampally, Hyderabad. 2 The Proh. & Excise Superintendent Ranga Reddy Dist. 3 Sree Raghavendra Bar & Restaurant Rep. by its Licencee, Ravindra Yadav Veera Reddy Colony, Boduppal, Ghatkesar, Ranga Reddy Dist. .....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 Writ Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS, declaring the action of the respondents in proposing to issue the licence in favour of the 3rd respondent for establishing the Bar and Restaurant at Veera Reddy Residential Colony, Boduppal, R.R. District, as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the A.P. Excise (Grant of Licence of Selling Bar and Conditions of Licence) Rules, 2005 and consequently direct the respondents to consider the objections ﬁled by the petitioner and not to issue any Bar and Restaurant licence to the 3rd respondent or any other person in the above said area, and to grant such other relief or reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems ﬁt and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.PALLENAGESWAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR PROHIBITION & EXCISE The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No: 25040 of 2008 O R D E R: The petitioner herein, who claims to be a resident of Veerareddy Residential Colony, ﬁled this writ petition seeking a declaration that the alleged action of the respondents 1 and 2 in proposing to issue a licence in favour of the third respondent for establishing a Bar and Restaurant in a residential locality is arbitrary and illegal. It is stated that though the petitioner made a representation dated 02-11-2008 raising objections for location of a Bar and Restaurant in the locality in question, the respondents 1 and 2 failed to consider the same. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 and 2. Since the representation is pending before the respondents 1 and 2, it is not necessary for this Court to enquire into the correctness of the allegations made by the petitioner. Instead I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 02-11-2008 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order after giving an opportunity to the third respondent to rebut the allegations. Meanwhile, the respondents 1 and 2 are directed not to grant any licence contrary to the provisions of Rule 6 of the A.P. Excise (Grant of Licence of Selling Bar and Conditions of Licence) 2005. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI,J Date: 14-11-2008 Note: Issue C.C. by tomorrow. B/o KLP