IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 5207 of 2009 Between: Vara Papa W/o. Ramu, R/o. Burrilank, Kaddiam, East Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise Nampally, Hyderabad. 2 The Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise Kakinada Division East Godavari Dist. 3 The Superintendent of Prohibition & Excise Rajahmundry East Godavari Dist. 4 M/s. R.V. Restaurant & Bar Rep. by proposed licencee, R.V. Subba Rao, S/o. Gangaiah H.No. 2-51/1, Burrilanka, Kadiam (M). R/o. Ravulapalem (V), East Godavari Dist. .....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 issue an order or orders, direction or directions, writ of writs particularly in the nature of "WRIT OF MANDAMUS" to declare the action of the Respondent No.1 in issuing prior clearance dated 3-03-09 in favour of Respondent No.4 for grant of 2B licence for selling by bar at H.No.2-51/1, Burrilanka, Kadiam (M), as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Excise (Grant of Licence of Selling by Bar and conditions of license) Rules, 2005 and as amended from time to time. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.K.L.N.SWAMY Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 3: GP FOR PROHIBITION & EXCISE Counsel for Respondent No.4: Sri J. Rama Mohana Rao The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: (Per Sri Anil R. Dave, CJ) This is a public interest litigation wherein the petitioner has made a grievance that respondent No. 4 is likely to be granted a licence to run a restaurant and bar in violation of the provisions of Rule 4 of the Andhra Pradesh Excise (Grant of Licenses of Selling by Bar and Conditions of Licences) Rules, 2005. According to the petitioner, licence is likely to be granted to respondent No. 4 to do the business at village Burrilanka, where the licence cannot be given because that is not a place or village which is a tourist place. In pursuance of notice issued by this Court, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise, Ms. K. Sridevi has appeared and she has also placed on record the counter affidavit filed by Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Kakinada Division – respondent No.2. At the time of hearing of this petition, it has been submitted on behalf of the official respondents that the entire matter of grant of licene is under active consideration of respondent No.1 and no final decision with regard to grant of licence in favour of respondent No. 4 has been taken so far. In view of the above submission made on behalf of the official respondents, in our opinion, the petition is premature. However, we direct respondent No. 1 to consider the contents of the present petition before taking final decision in the matter of grant of licence in favour of respondent No.4. If respondent No. 1 decides to grant licence to respondent No.4, he shall record the reasons and shall also communicate the reasons for which the licence has been granted, to the petitioner by registered post acknowledgment due so that if for unjustifiable reasons licence has been granted to respondent No. 4, the petitioner can take appropriate action in accordance with law. In view of the above direction given to respondent No.1, the petition is disposed of with no order as to costs. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J 17th June, 2009 ks