IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No: 11800 of 2008 BETWEEN: 1 Sri E. Sangamma W/o. late E. Narayana R/o. H.No.8-4-367/34, Vinayaknagar, Borabanda, Hyderabad. 2 Sri E. Srinivas S/o. late E. Narayana, R/o. H.No.8-4-367/34, Vinayaknagar, Borabanda, Hyderabad. 3 Sri E. Venu Goud S/o. late E. Narayana, R/o. H.No.8-4-367/34, Vinayaknagar, Borabanda, Hyderabad. ... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise, Exhibition Grounds Road, Hyderabad. 2 The Prohibition and Excise Commissioner, M.J. Market Hyderabad, Hyderabad District. 3 Sri A. Babu Rao S/o. late A. Yellaiah, R/o.H.No.8-4-367/235, Vinayaknagar, Borabanda, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, direct the respondent No.1 and 2 not to renew the license during the excise year 2008-09 NO.1 WINE SHOP of respondent No.3 and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioners: MR. RAKASH CHAKRAVARTHY Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 2: GP FOR PROHIBITION & EXCISE The Court made the following: ORDER: Petitioners submit that the petitioners 2 and 3 are the sons of the first petitioner, who is the landlady of the premises bearing No.8-4-370/510 consisting of ground floor and 1st floor leased out in favour of the third respondent for the purpose of running a wine shop in the year 2003. 2. Petitioners further submit that when the property was intended to be sold away to third parties, the third respondent filed a suit for temporary injunction restraining the petitioners from alienating the said property but the said I.A.No.626 of 2006 in O.S.No.106 of 2006 was dismissed by the Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad by order dated 07.09.2006. 3. I am of the opinion that the Chief Judge rightly dismissed the said application, as the tenant cannot have any right to object the alienation of the property by the landlady. Merely because the injunction application has been dismissed, it cannot be said that the petitioners are entitled to evict the third respondent and object the renewal of licence in respect of his wine shop in the absence of any specific provision under the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act. Petitioners seek a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents 1 and 2 not to renew the licence of the third respondent for the excise year 2008-09. When the tenant is legally holding over the property, the only course open to the petitioners is to seek appropriate action for eviction of the third respondent from the premises in question by approaching the civil Court. Therefore, I am of the opinion that no Writ of Mandamus can be issued directing the respondents 1 and 2 not to renew the licence. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ V. ESWARAIAH, J June 11, 2008 Note: Furnish C.C. of the order by 12.06.2008 (B/o) DSK