IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF NOVEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.28911 of 2011 Between: C. Sudarshan … Petitioner And The Superintendent of Police, Karimnagar, Karimnagar District & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri Challa Ajay Kumar for Sri Babuji Tenneti Counsel for respondents 4&5: AGP for Prohibition & Excise This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.28911 of 2011 ORDER:- This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the purported inaction of the official respondents in preventing respondent Nos.6 to 8 from interfering with the petitioner’s business, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner is an A-4 licensee for running a retail liquor shop. According to him, he has permitted respondent Nos.6 to 8 to look after the business in his absence. The grievance of the petitioner is two fold, namely; that respondent Nos.6 to 8 have not been permitting him to run the business and on his complaint no action is taken by respondent Nos.1 to 5, and that respondent No.4 has been releasing the stocks in favour of respondent Nos.6 to 8 even though he is the licensee. As far as the first grievance is concerned, in my opinion, the petitioner, being the licensee, is entitled to assert his right for running the business on the strength of his licence. If respondent Nos.6 to 8 have been unduly interfering with such right, he can seek redressal of his grievance by approaching the competent civil Court by claiming appropriate relief against them. Till the petitioner obtains such a relief, the official respondents cannot be expected to interfere in the civil disputes between the petitioner on the one side and respondent Nos.6 to 8 on the other. With regard to the grievance against respondent No.4, it is needless to observe that he shall release the stocks only in favour of the licensee or any person authorised by him. Respondent No.4 is therefore directed to examine the grievance of the petitioner and take appropriate action thereon in terms of the extant provisions of the A.P. Excise Act, 1968 and the Rules made thereunder. Subject to the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.Nos.35748 and 35749 of 2011 are disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 04.11.2011 ES