HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.6236 of 2010 Date 28.07.2010 Between: Gattula Veera Venkata Ramana. ..... PETITIONER AND Government of A.P. rep. By its Secretary, Department of Prohibition and Excise, Secretariat, Hyderabad & others. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri N.V. Anantha Krishna Counsel for the Respondents : AGP for Prohibition and Excise HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.6236 of 2010 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not granting bar licence to the petitioner on his application dated 09.06.2008 submitted to them as illegal and arbitrary. I have heard Sri N.V. Anantha Krishna, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise and perused the record. The petitioner made an application for grant of prior clearance to respondent No.2 on 09.06.2008 for establishment of a bar and restaurant. The petitioner has stated that he approached respondent No.2 under Right to Information Act, 2005 to furnish information on his application. The office of respondent No.2 is stated to have furnished all the details through letter dated 09.02.2010. The petitioner has averred that the said information furnished to him by the office of respondent No.2 would disclose that on 09.06.2008 itself, respondent No.2 had acknowledged the petitioner’s application filed in Form-1A and that the office note furnished to the petitioner shows that the said application was rejected as not viable. The petitioner filed an application for amendment to question the office note. At the hearing, it has come out that respondent No.2 has not communicated any order rejecting the petitioner’s application for grant of prior clearance. Though the office note filed by the petitioner shows the endorsement “rejected”, it is not known whether the said endorsement was made by respondent No.2. According to the petitioner’s assertion, the decision of respondent No.2 has not been communicated to him so far. In my opinion, when an application for prior clearance is received, it is incumbent upon respondent No.2 to take appropriate decision thereon and communicate the same to the applicant and if the applicant feels aggrieved by the decision so taken, he is entitled to avail his remedies according to law. Unless the decision is communicated to the petitioner, it is not appropriate for him to question the intradepartmental correspondence disclosing proposals to reject the petitioner’s application. Therefore, the Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2 to take a decision on the petitioner’s application for prior clearance, if not already taken, and pass a reasoned order in the event of his refusing to grant prior clearance and communicate the same to the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If the petitioner feels aggrieved by the decision taken by respondent No.2, he is entitled to avail his remedy in accordance with law. As a sequel to dismissal of the main petition, WPMP.Nos.8033 and 13286 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief are disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date:28.07.2010 Usd