IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF JUNE, TWO THOUSAND TEN PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.23906 of 2009 Between: M/s. Balaji Educational Society Rep., by its Chairman, Narsampet, Warangal District. … Petitioner And The Excise & Prohibition Superintendent Mahaboobabad, Warangal District & another. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri S. Chalapathi Rao Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Prohibition & Excise This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.23906 of 2009 ORDER:- The short and simple grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is that its representation dated 29.05.2009 made to respondent No.1 has not received the attention it deserves and has not been disposed of. By the said representation, the petitioner informed respondent No.1 that its campus contains 31 palm trees and 24 palm trees (Bothalu) and that their existence is coming in the way of construction of new buildings by it. The petitioner therefore requested respondent No.1 to take necessary steps for removal of these trees. At the hearing, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise, on written instructions from respondent No.1, stated that the members of Tapers’ Cooperative Society, Lakhnepally Village raised objections through their representation dated 29.06.2009 to the cutting down of the toddy trees and that discrete enquiry is ordered by the District Collector, who is the competent authority under Section 27 of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968 to grant permission. It is further stated that after completion of the enquiry, further action on the petitioner’s request will be taken. According to the learned Assistant Government Pleader, the above information was given by respondent No.1 vide his letter dated 18.11.2009 addressed to the Government Pleader. The learned Assistant Government Pleader is unable to state whether the enquiry is completed and appropriate decision is taken. As more than 7 months had elapsed from the time instructions given by respondent No.1, I find no justification to cause further delay in taking a decision on the request of the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction to respondent No.1 to ensure that an appropriate decision is taken by the competent authority on the petitioner’s representation within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and communicate the decision to the petitioner. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.31066 of 2009 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. _____________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 08.06.2010 ES