IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.5009 of 2009 Between: M/s. Indu Wines L.N. 182/2008-2010 Re. by Medisetti Narayya, aged 35 yrs S/o. Sathi Raju C/o. Door No. 21-225, Machilipatnam, Krishna District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Nampally, Hyderabad. 2 The Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise VIjayawada, Krishna District. 3 The Superintendent of Prohibition and Excise Krishna District. Machilipatnam Krishna District. 4 M/s. Venkateswara Restaurant & Bar Rep. by Y. Poornachandra Rao S/o. Madhava Rao, Machilipatnam Krishna District. 5 M/s. Srinivasa Resturant & Bar, Rep. by K.V.S. Das S/o. Not known R/o. Machilipatnam Krishna District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:SRI K.L.N.SWAMY Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 3:AGP FOR PROHIBITION & EXCISE Counsel for Respondent No.5: MRS. S.NANDA The Court made the following : ORDER: The petitioner, which is an existing licensee of selling liquor in retail under Form A-4 in Machilipatnam, filed the present Writ Petition in anticipation of respondent Nos.4 and 5 being issued licenses in Form 2B for running bars and restaurants. In the view this Court is proposing to take in the writ petition, it is not necessary to refer to the averments and counter averments of the respective parties in detail. It will suffice to note that before the Deputy Commissioner grants license for running a bar and restaurant, sanction needs to be given by the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise under Rule 5 of the Andhra Pradesh Excise (Lease of Right of Selling by Shop and Conditions of License) Rules, 2005. It is admitted that so far, the Commissioner has not disposed of the applications of respondent Nos.4 and 5 for granting prior permission. Therefore, no cause of action had arisen for the petitioner to approach this Court at this stage. There can be no reason for the petitioner to infer that the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise will ignore the report said to have been submitted by respondent No.3 on the viability of granting bar licenses, before taking a final decision. Therefore, the Writ Petition is premature and the same is accordingly, dismissed as such. This order, however, does not preclude the petitioner from availing the remedy, if and when bar licenses are granted in favour of respondent Nos.4 and 5 and the petitioner felt aggrieved by such grant. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, interim order, dated 23.03.2009 is vacated, WPMP.No.6557 of 2009 is dismissed and WPMP.No.13730 of 2009 and WVMP.No.1635 of 2009 are disposed of as infructuous. _____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 29.06.2009 Bvv/kvni