IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 7335 of 2009 Between: R. Anjaneyulu, S/o. Rangappa, Licensee of M/s. Gokul Restaturant & Bar Door No. 1-4-20, Penukonda Road, Hindupur, Anantapur District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by the Commissioner of Excise, Hyderabad. 2 Deputy Commissioner for Prohibition and Excise, Anantapur, Anantapur District. 3 The Prohibition and Excise Superintendent, Penukonda, Anantapur District. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction declaring the order of the 2nd Respondent passed in Rc.No. 79/2009/C1 dated 30-03-2009 as illegal, arbitrary and one without jurisdiction and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.O.MANOHER REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR PROHIBITION & EXCISE The Court made the following : O R D E R:- The petitioner asserts that he was granted licence under Rule-11 of A.P. Excise (Grant of License of Selling by Bar and Conditions of License) Rules, 2005 (for short “the Rules”) on 16.10.2006 to run a bar and restaurant at premises bearing D.No.1-4-20, Penukonda Road, Hindupur Municipality and he has been running it without contravening any of the conditions of the licence and the licence is being renewed from time to time and the petitioner has not made any additional enclosures to the premises. While so, the 2nd respondent issued a Show Cause Notice dated 26.03.2009 calling upon him to show cause as to why the licence should not be cancelled for violation of Rules and licence conditions and to submit explanation within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice, and further, the 2nd respondent, issued the impugned Proceedings dated 30.03.2009 demanding him to pay additional enclosure fee of Rs.1.4 lakhs for 2006-07 and Rs.1.61 lakhs for 2007-08. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise appearing for the respondents. The learned Government Pleader has submitted that if the petitioner wants to challenge the impugned proceedings, he has alternative remedy of appeal before the appellate authority. Inasmuch as the petitioner has an alternative remedy of appeal before the appeal authority, this Court is inclined to disposed of the writ petition with the following directions: “The petitioner is directed to avail the alternative remedy of appeal before the appellate authority and seek appropriate relief within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till such time, the respondents are directed not to implement the Proceedings dated 30.03.2009.” Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. ______________ N.V.RAMANA, J 8th April, 2009 bcj