IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION NO : 8916 of 2005 Between: N.Ashanna Goud, s/o Saya Goud, r/o Pothireddypalli Village, Sangareddy Mandal, Medak District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, Medak District, at Sangareddy. 2 The Superintendent, Prohibition and Excise, Sangareddy, Medak District. 3 The President, Geetha Toddy Tappers Coop.Society, Pothireddypally Village, Sangareddy Mandal, Medak District. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 to call for the records from the respondents herein by issuing a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus by declaring the action of the respondent Nos.1 and 2 in not conducting enquiry/not initiating appropriate steps against 3rd respondent herein for violating A.P.Excise (Arrack & Toddy Licences General Conditions), Rules, 1969 and its bye laws as arbitrary, illegal, contrary to law and in violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the 1 and 2nd respondent to conduct enquiry into the matter as per the provisions of A.P.Excise (Arrack & Toddy licences General Conditions) Rules, 1969 and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.SRIDHAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR PROHIBITION & EXCISE The Court made the following : ORDER: The petitioner seeks to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents 1 and 2 in not conducting enquiry/not initiating appropriate steps against the 3rd respondent for violating A.P. Excise (Arrack & Toddy Licences General Conditions) Rules, 1969 and the byelaws thereunder, as arbitrary and illegal. It is stated that the petitioner had made a representation on 3.3.2005 before the 1st respondent-District Collector for taking appropriate action against the 3rd respondent. This Court, while admitting the writ petition, granted interim direction on 27.4.2005 directing the respondents to consider and dispose of the representation dated 3.3.2005. In view of the aforesaid interim order, no further orders need be passed in the writ petition. The writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. -------------------------- V. ESWARAIAH, J DATE: 28.3.2008 CVM