IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVE and HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.16287 of 2008 Between: 1 G.V.V. Satyanarayana S/o Tata Rao R/o Kadiyapulanka Kadiyam Mandal, East Godavari District. 2 B. Vasudeva Rao S/o Bhaskara Rao R/o Burrilanka, R/o Kadiyapulanka Grampanchayath, Kadiyam Mandal, East Godavari District. 3 T.Venkateswra rao S/o Satyam R/o Kadiyapulanka Kadiyam Mandal, East Godavari District. 4 B. Aruna W/o Srinivas R/o Kadiyapulanka Kadiyam Mandal, East Godavari District. ... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Commissioner, Prohibition and Excise, Nampally, Hyderabad. 2 Prohibition and Excise Superintendent, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District. 3 Inspector of Prohibition and Excise, Rajahmundry South Rajahmundry, East Godavari Dsitrict. 4 Kadiyapulanka Grampanchayat, Kadiyam Mandal, East Godavari District rep by its Executive Officer, 5 R.V. Restaurant 7 bar, rep. by its Proposed Licencee Sri R. V. Subba Rao S/o Gangaiah, R/o Ravulapalem Village, E.G. District. ...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 a Writ order or direction more particulrly one in the nature of Writ of Mandmaus declaring the action of the respondents 1 to 4 in proposing to grant licence in favour of the 5th respondent to run Bar & Restaurant in Kadiyapulanka Village, Kadiyam mandal, East Godavari District as illegal, arbitrary, null and void and for a consequential direction to the respondents not to permit the 5th respondent to run the Bar & Restaurant in Kadiyapulanka Village, Kadiyam Mandal, E.G. District. Counsel for the Petitioners: MR. M.V. SURESH Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 3: GP FOR PROHIBITION & EXCISE Counsel for Respondent No.4: MR. M. PRABHAKER RAO The Court made the following: Order: (Per HC, J) This public interest litigation is with regard to grant of licence to run a Bar & Restaurant in favour of Respondent No.5. It is the case of the petitioners that Respondent No.5 is likely to be granted licence against the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Excise (Grant of License of selling by Bar and conditions of licence) Rules, 2005 framed under Section 72 of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968. The learned Government Pleader appearing for Respondents Nos.1 to 3 has submitted that, at this stage, no licence has been issued to Respondent No.5; however the matter is being considered whether licence should be issued and for the said purpose preliminary enquiry has been made. It has been further submitted that prior clearance with regard to grant of licence has been kept in abeyance because of certain representations made at this stage. In view of the above fact, it is clear that the petition is premature. It is, however, directed that Respondents Nos.1 and 2, before issuance of licence in favour of Respondent No.5, shall consider all the averments and allegations made in the petition and if they ﬁnd any substance in the allegations, we are sure that requisite licence shall not be given to Respondent No.5. With these observations, the petition stands disposed of with no order as to costs. __________________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ. _______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J. September 25, 2008 MRR