THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL Nos.1083 of 2002 & 1111 of 2002 DATED:17-08-2009 WRIT APPEAL No.1083 of 2002: The Principal Secretary, Prohibition & Excise Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad & 3 others. …..Appellants-Respondents 1, 2, 3 & 6 And Paper Clippings of ‘Vartha’ Tel;ugu Daily Newspaper, City Editions, dated 08-06-2002 & 14-06-2002 under the captions “paina Badi… Kindha Bar’ and ‘Vidyalayam Needalo E panashala Emiti?” respectively & 4 others. … Respondents-Respondents 4,5,7 & 8 WRIT APPEAL No.1111 of 2002: M/s Tripura Bar & Restaurant, Shop No.25 to 28, Alluri Trade Centre, Bhagyanagar colony, Kukatpally, rep., by V.Harish Babu. …. Appellant And The Principal Secretary, Prohibition & Excise Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad & 6 others. ….. Respondents. COMMON ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Sanjay Kumar) These two Writ Appeals arise out of the order dated 18-06-2002 passed by a learned Judge of this Court in W.P.No.10685 of 2002. This Writ Petition was taken up suo motu basing on the paper clipping in ‘Vartha’ Telugu daily newspaper, adverting to the granting of licence to ‘Tripura Bar & Restaurant’ in the ground floor of Alluri Trade Centre, Bhagyanagar colony, Kukatpally Housing Board Limits, Rangareddy District. 2. By the order impugned in these appeals, the learned Judge suspended the proceedings of the Superintendent of Prohibition & Excise, Rangareddy District, Hyderabad, renewing the licence of the said Bar. The reason recorded in the said order is that the Bar was housed in a building in which an Educational Institution was situated in the 6th floor. Further, a temple was also located nearby. T h e prima facie finding of the learned Judge was that the continuance of the said Bar and Restaurant had serious consequences insofar as the students of the Educational Institution are concerned and also upon the devotees visiting the temple. Stating so, the learned Judge granted interim suspension of the renewal of the licence of the said Bar and directed issuance of notice to the said Bar returnable in four weeks. 3. W.A.No.1111 of 2002 is filed by the Bar aggrieved by the suspension of its licence. 4. W.A.No.1083 of 2002 is filed by the Excise authorities against the same order, contending that the renewal of the Bar licence was in accordance with norms. 5. The learned counsel for the Bar and the learned Government Pleader for Excise argued that the learned Judge ought not to have suspended the renewal of the licence by way of an ex parte interim order, without considering the matter on merits after hearing both sides. 6. In view of the fact that the learned Judge only passed an ad- interim order pending the return of notice on the Bar and Restaurant, we are of the opinion that it would be appropriate to permit the appellant-Bar & Restaurant and the Excise department to raise all the grounds raised herein in the Writ Petition itself. The Excise authorities are also at liberty to support their action in renewing the licence before the learned Judge hearing the Writ Petition. 7. The Writ Appeals are accordingly disposed of with the above observations. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ B.PRAKASH RAO,J ___________________ SANJAY KUMAR,J 17th August, 2009. Tsy