IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FIVE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI BILAL NAZKI, THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 25171 of 2003 Between: 1 Puranam Satish Kumar and two others. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal Secretary Revenue (Excise-III) Department Secretariat, Hyderabad, and 4 others. .....RESPONDENTS ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Bilal Nazki, The Acting Chief Justice) Heard learned Counsel for the parties. The grievance of the petitioners is that respondent No.5 was granted a liquor licence on 29-10-2003, and that he was not entitled as he was regular employee of respondent No.4. Counter has been filed by the Government. It is admitted in the counter that there is a bar for employees of Singareni collieries to do any business. Respondent No.5 did not file any counter despite opportunities. The petitioner has placed on record salary slips of respondent No.5, which are not disputed. Therefore, it is proved that respondent No.5 was a regular employee of the Singareni collieries, when licence was granted to him. Learned Government Pleader for Excise submits that licence was only for one year, and it has expired, and respondent No.5 at present does not have continuing licence to sell liquor. Therefore, no further directions are needed to be given in this writ petition as far as licence is concerned. However, it has come to our notice that respondent No.5 could have not done the liquor business and obtained a licence as he was in the employment of respondent No.4. If that is true, respondent No.4 may take appropriate action permissible under law against respondent No.5 in accordance with rules after hearing him. Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. No costs. --------------------------------- (Bilal Nazki, A.C.J) 1st September, 2005 --------------------------------- (R.Subhash Reddy, J) LUR