IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF APRIL, TWO THOUSAND TEN PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.5408 of 2010 Between: Suryapet Toddy Tappers Co-op., Society Suryapet, Nalgonda District. … Petitioner And The Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise Govt., of A.P., Hyderabad & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri Bommagani Prabhakar Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Prohibition & Excise This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.5408 of 2010 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not considering the petitioner’s representation for reduction of rental and ration in view of removal of substantial number of toddy and sendhi trees in connection with the construction of Municipal Stadium and Indiramma Housing Scheme, as illegal and arbitrary. Though time for filing counter affidavit was taken by the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondents on two occasions, no counter affidavit has been filed. I have heard Sri Bommagani Prabhakar, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise for the respondents. The petitioner is a Tappers’ Cooperative Society. It was allotted 1100 Sandhi trees and 3788 Toddy trees. The petitioner claimed that out of the said trees, 750 Sandhi trees and 1310 Toddy trees were cut and removed due to the construction of Municipal Stadium and Indiramma Housing Scheme. In view of the same, the petitioner was re-allotted 650 Sandhi trees and 1703 Toddy trees. The petitioner filed a copy of letter dated 10.11.2008 addressed by respondent No.2 to respondent No.3, wherein the abovementioned facts have been manifested. In the said letter, respondent No.2 recommended for acceptance of the petitioner’s request for reducing the rents and ration. The grievance of the petitioner is that no decision has been taken on the said recommendations by respondent No.3. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise stated that proposals are pending with respondent No.1. In view of the fact that the petitioner’s request for reduction of rents and ration was found genuine and recommended by respondent No.2, I do not find any justification for respondent No.1 to withhold the permission despite lapse of substantial time. For the abovementioned reasons, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction to respondent No.1 to consider the request of the petitioner for reduction of rents and ration as recommended by respondent No.2 and communicate his decision to the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.6949 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is also disposed of. _____________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 22.04.2010 ES Note:- Issue CC in one week. B/o. ES.