IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) SATURDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 22537 of 2008 Between: 1 B. Vaikuntam S/o. Balraj of Himayathsagar Village R/o. Himayathsagar (V), Rajendranagar (M) Ranga Reddy District. 2 N. Yadaiah Goud S/o. Eswaraiah Goud of Himayathsagar Village R/o. Himayathsagar (V), Rajendranagar (M) Ranga Reddy District. 3 N. Krishna S/o. Prabhu Goud of Himayathsagar Village R/o. Himayathsagar (V), Rajendranagar (M) Ranga Reddy District. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The Prohibition & Excise Superintendent Rajendra Nagar, Ranga Reddy District. 2 The Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise, Government of A.P, Office at Abkari Bhavan, M.J. Road, Hyderabad. .....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 to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in issuinjg the impugned proceedings Cr.No. A1/1997/2008 dt. 4-10-2008 in suspending the T.F.T. Licenses of the petitioners at Counter Nos. 2,4, and 5 at Himayathsagar Village, Rajendra Nagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District pending enquiry as illegal, unlawful contrary to law and against the principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the impugned order issued by the 1st Respondent and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.M.DAMODAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR PROHIBITION & EXCISE The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 22537 of 2008 ORAL ORDER This writ petition is ﬁled seeking a declaration that the order passed by the 1st respondent dated.04-10-2008 suspending the toddy licence of the petitioner pending enquiry as arbitrary and illegal. At the outset, it is to be noted as against the impugned order a remedy of appeal is available under Sec.63 of A.P. Excise Act and as a matter of fact the petitioner has already preferred such an appeal along with an application for stay of operation of the impugned order. In the circumstances it is neither necessary nor proper for this Court to go into the merits of the case and express any opinion. Accordingly the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the 2nd respondent, before whom the appeal preferred by the petitioner is pending, to dispose of the application for stay ﬁled by the petitioner along with its appeal following the due process of law as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of one(1) week from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. _______________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt.18.10.2008 Note: Issue CC In two Days. (B/O) *T SNR