THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.29680 of 2011 Dated 08th November, 2011 Between: M.Eswara Rao …Petitioner And The Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri V.Hanumantha Rao Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3: AGP for Prohibition & Excise The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the proceedings in Cr.No.6983/2011/CPE/G3, dated 11.10.2011, of respondent No.1 and endorsement, dated 18.10.2011, of respondent No.3, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner is a licensee for sale of Indian made liquor in retail in respect of shop No.1, Yellandu Village and Mandal, Khammam District. The period of licence is from 01.07.2010 to 30.06.2012. In pursuance of an understanding between respondent No.4 and the petitioner, the latter made an application on 05.01.2011 before respondent No.3 to include the name of respondent No.4 as a co-licensee. It is the pleaded case of the petitioner that respondent No.4 has coerced and pressurised him to make the said application and has backed out of the deal. The petitioner has, therefore, made an application on 28.10.2011, before respondent No.3 not to include the name of respondent No.4 as co-licensee. The petitioner has, thereafter, filed W.P.No.29076 of 2011, which was withdrawn by him, as it had come out that the name of respondent No.4 was already included in the licence, with liberty to him to question the said action. Accordingly, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. On the petitioner’s own showing, he has applied to respondent No.3 for incorporating the name of respondent No.4 in the licence. However, a conflicting plea was raised that respondent No.4 has forged the petitioner’s signature. If the petitioner felt that respondent No.4 has cheated him, nothing prevented him from approaching respondent No.3 with an appropriate representation before a decision was taken by respondent No.1 on his application for incorporating the name of respondent No.4. The petitioner allowed respondent Nos.1 and 3 to act on his representation and made an application thereafter not to include the name of respondent No.4. By the time, the said request was made, the petitioner’s application was acted upon. In these circumstances, it is not appropriate to direct respondent Nos.1 and 3 to hold an enquiry into the disputes between the petitioner on the one side and respondent No.4 on the other. It is not expected of respondent No.3 to adjudicate the disputes raised by the petitioner as to whether respondent No.4 has coerced the petitioner to make an application, and whether respondent No.4 has backed out of the deal between him and the petitioner. These are all the aspects, which need to be adjudicated by a competent civil Court. I am, therefore, of the opinion that at this stage, respondent No.1 and 3 cannot intervene in the disputes between the petitioner and respondent No.4 and the petitioner is left with the option of approaching the civil Court for appropriate relief against respondent No.4. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.36762 of 2011 is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 08th November, 2011 VGB