IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 5183 of 2009 Between: T C S Maldakal (V) & (M) Rep. by its President, Chinna Dastagiri Goud, Mahabubnagar District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise Andhra Pradesh Hyderabad. 2 The Prohibition & Excise Gadwal, Mahabubnagar Dist. .....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 in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS or any other appropriate Writ or Writs, Order or Direction, declaring the action of Respondents in not considering the representation dt. 10-2-2009 made by petitioner society along with Resolution of General Body of Petitioner society for the purpose of reviving the petitioner society by granting fresh licence under rule 39 of A.P. Excise (Grant of Licence to Sell Toddy, Conditions of Licence and Tapping of Excise Trees) Rules, 2007 issued by Government vide G.O.Ms.No. 1228 dt. 19-9-2007 as illegal and arbitrary by consequently directing the Respondents to forthwith consider the above representation of petitioner and the report dt. 15-2-2009 in Rc. No. A/ 22/ GDL / 2009 submitted by Prohibition and Excise Inspector, S H O., Gadwal, for reviving the petitioner society by granting fresh licence; Award costs. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.N.SRIDHAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR PROHIBITION & EXCISE The Court made the following : O R D E R:- The petitioner-T.C.S. Group, which is a Society represented by its President, asserts that the 2nd respondent granted licence to it for selling toddy in Maldakal village. While so, the 2nd respondent, after inspecting the toddy shop of the petitioner, cancelled the licence on the ground that the toddy that was sold by the petitioner-society was found to be adulterated. Thereafter, the petitioner-society convened a General Body Meeting for expulsion of the members of the Managing Committee who were responsible for sale of adulterated toddy, and passed a resolution dated 22.1.2009 expelling the members of the old managing committee and made a representation dated 09.02.2009 to the respondents requesting them to revive the petitioner-Society with the existing members (new committee) in tune with Section 39 of the A.P. Excise (Grant of Licence to Sell Toddy, Conditions of Licence and Tapping of Excise Trees), Rules, 2007 issued by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.1228, dated 19.9.2007. Now, the petitioner’s grievance is that the respondents have not passed any orders on the representation. Challenging the action of the respondents, the petitioner filed this writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material placed on record. Since the representation dated 09.02.2009 filed by the petitioner is pending consideration before the respondents, both the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise agreed to the disposal of the writ petition with the following direction: “Respondent Nos.1 and 2 i.e. the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise and the Prohibition and Excise Superintendent are directed to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 09.02.2009, said to have been filed for revival of the petitioner-society with the existing members, and pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law, expeditiously.” Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. ______________ N.V.RAMANA, J 16th March, 2009 bcj