HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.34347 of 2011 Date:28.12.2011 Between: Dr.Rednam Venkata Krishna Rao And another. ..... Petitioners And: State of Andhra Pradesh, Reptd by its Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Hyderabad and three others. .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri N.Siva Reddy Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 3: GP for Prohibition and Excise The Court made the following: ORDER: The petitioners who are owners of the premises bearing No. 48-19-1, Ward No.15, Dwarakanagar, Visakhapatnam, filed this Writ Petition feeling aggrieved by the purported inaction of respondent Nos.2 and 3 in closing the shop being run under A-4 licence by respondent No.4 on the ground that there are colleges, educational and religious institutions within the prohibited distance under Rule 27 of the A.P. Excise (Lease of Right of selling by shop and conditions of licence) Rules, 2005, (for short ‘the Rules’). A perusal of the averments contained in the affidavit, filed in support of the Writ Petition, would show that there are serious civil disputes between the petitioners on the one side and the lessee and sub-lessee on the other. As many as three suits i.e., O.S.Nos.442, 771 and 946 of 2010 have been pending in various courts. The limited grievance of the petitioners in this Writ Petition is that despite existence of colleges, educational and religious institutions within the prohibited distance, respondent Nos.2 and 3 have not been taking action against respondent No.4. The petitioners have caused a legal notice issued as far back as 26.03.2010, wherein a vague plea was raised that the premises was leased out for running A-4 shop when there were no colleges, educational and religious institutions in and around Dwarakanagar, and that, later on, despite coming into existence of colleges, educational and religious institutions, the excise officials have not been taking any action due to rampant corruption in the department. Even though the petitioners have named a college in the affidavit, they have not approached respondent Nos.2 and 3, immediately before filing the present Writ Petition with an appropriate representation in this regard. The legal notice was got issued by the petitioners nearly two years back. As the petitioners failed to sensitize respondent Nos.2 and 3 before filing this Writ Petition, I am not inclined to entertain this Writ Petition at this stage. Instead the petitioners are permitted to make a detailed representation to respondent Nos.2 and 3 on the alleged violation of Rule 27 of the Rules by respondent No.4. If such representation is received, respondent Nos.2 and 3 shall consider the same and take appropriate action in terms of Rule 27 of the Rules. However, before any such action is taken, respondent No.4 shall be put on notice and given an opportunity of putting forth its case. Subject to the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, W.P.M.P.No.42755 of 2011 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. __________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 28th December 2011 DR