THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.5118 OF 2010 Dated 05th March, 2010 Between: Ch.Sita Rama Gupta …Petitioner And The Commissioner Proh. and Excise And three others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri N.Hari Prasad Counsel for respondents 1 to 3 : AGP for Prohibition & Excise The Court made the following ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the inaction of respondents 1 to 3 in initiating action for shifting respondent No.4 shop from the premises bearing door No.2-38 in spite of various representations as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner sought for a direction to respondents 1 to 3 to pass orders for shifting the said shop. The petitioner, who claims to be carrying on ‘business’ in Pedakurapadu Village and Mandal, Guntur District, averred that the liquor shop being run by respondent No.4 is situated within a distance of 100 meters from Shiva Temple and also a School by name Pragathi Vidyaniketan. According to the petitioner, several representations were made to the official respondents for closing down the said shop, but the petitioner’s efforts did not fructify. The petitioner referred to and relied upon resolution dated 08.02.2010 of the Pedakurapadu Gram Panchayat followed by a representation dated 09.02.2010 by its Sarpanch requesting respondent No.2 not to renew the A-4 licence of respondent No.4. The petitioner further averred that he has reliably learnt that the official respondents are proposing to renew the licence of respondent No.4 for the year 2010-2011. Though the petitioner claims to be a businessman in his affidavit, he has not revealed as to the nature of the business he is carrying on. This gives rise to a reasonable suspicion in the mind of the Court that respondent No.4 may be a rival trader to the petitioner or he may have been set up by a rival trader. Be that as it may, when the Gram Panchayat concerned has passed a resolution and made a representation to the licence renewing authority objecting to the proposed renewal of the petitioner’s licence, this Court finds no reason to presume that the authority will not consider the said resolution before taking a decision on the renewal of licence. For the above mentioned reasons, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, WPMP No.6592 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 5th March, 2010 vrn