HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL No. 1235 OF 2009 Dated: 22-10-2009 Between: M/s. Sangeetha Wines, Yellandu Shop No.2, Ward No.15, G.S.No.30, premises H.No.4-1-109, Jagadhamba Centre, Yellandu Village and Mandal, Khammam District, rep., by its Licencee Kalvar Satyanarayana, S/o. Ramprasad, aged about 56 years, R/o. Yellandu, Khammam District and another ... APPELLANTS AND The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep., by its Prl. Secretary, Revenue, (Excise-II) Department, Secretariat Building, Hyderabad and five others ... RESPONDENTS THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVE AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO. 1235 OF 2009 JUDGEMENT: (per Sri Anil R. Dave, CJ) Being aggrieved by an interim order dated 05-10-2009 passed in WPMP No. 19910 of 2009 in Writ Petition No. 15159 of 2009, this appeal has been filed by the writ petitioners. 2. At the time of hearing of this appeal, the learned advocate appearing for the appellants wanted to rely upon the material which had not been placed before the learned single Judge. According to him, the said material is of vital importance and had the learned single Judge perused the said material, possibly the impugned order would not have been passed. 3. It is an admitted fact that the material on which the learned advocate for the appellants wants to rely upon was not placed before the learned single Judge. In the circumstances, we cannot look into the said material. However, to enable the appellants to place the same before the learned single Judge, the learned counsel for the appellants may file a review application before the learned single Judge after placing the said material before the learned single Judge so that an appropriate order can be passed in the review application as well as in WPMP No. 19910 of 2009, after perusing the material to be placed before him and upon hearing the learned advocates for the parties. 4. We are sure that if the additional material and the review application are filed, the review application would be heard at an early date. 5. The writ appeal is accordingly disposed of with no order as to costs. 6. As a sequel to disposal of the appeal, WAMP Nos. 2586 and 2587 of 2009, filed by the appellants, are disposed of as infructuous ANIL R. DAVE, CJ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 22-10-2009 ks Note: Furnish copy by Monday. B/O ks