IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 24886 of 2008 Between: D.Gopal Naidu S/o.D.Ramaiah R/o. Madanapalli Chittoor District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 2 The Joint Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 3 The Prohibition and Excise Superintendent, Chittoor, Chittoor District. 4 The Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Madanapalli, Chittoor District. 5 The Municipal Commissioner, Madanapalli Municipality, Madanapalli, Chittoor District. .....RESPONDENTS 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 issue an order or direction more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in sending the report in Proceedings Rc.No.B1/406/2008, dated 4.10.2008 pursuant to the report submitted by the 4th respondent and the letter L.Dis.No.2259/G1/2008, dated 3.7.2008 of the 5th respondent for rejection of the request of the petitioner for shifting of the shop, as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and unconstitutional and contrary to the orders passed by this Hon'ble Court and consequently direct the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 allow the petitioner to shift the shop without taking into consideration of the letter dated 3.7.2008 issued by the 5th respondent, by holding that the petitioner is entitled to run his wine shop by shifting his premises to 11-344, Ward No.15, Madanapalli, Chittoor District and pass such other and further order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.KOTI REDDY IDAMAKANTI Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR PROHIBITION & EXCISE The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 24886 of 2008 O R D E R: The petitioner’s request for shifting his licenced shop has not yet been decided and as such, it cannot be said that there is any cause of action for ﬁling this writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition being premature is hereby dismissed. However, this shall not preclude the petitioner to ﬁle a fresh writ petition in case any adverse order is passed. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI,J Date: 13-11-2008 KLP