IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO And THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO WRIT APPEAL NO.945 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 22.08.2008 in W.P.M.P.NO.22667 OF 2008 IN W.P.NO.17449 OF 2008 on the file of the High Court.) Between: V. Niranjan Kumar, S/o. Ramnarayana, R/o. Warangal, C/o. Surya Restaurant Bar, 11-24-111/3, Desaipet Road, Warangal District. ...APPELLANT AND 1 Vasam Sarangapani, S/o. Mukundam, R/o. 11-23/2227/4, L.B.nagar, Warangal District. 2 The Prohibition & Excise Superintendent, Warangal Division, Warangal District. 3 The Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise, Warangal Division, Warangal District. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant: MR.Y.RAMA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: MR.P.BALAMUKUNDA RAO The Court delivered the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO And THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO WRIT APPEAL NO.945 of 2008 JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble Mr Justice B.Prakash Rao) The appellant-respondent No.3 in W.P.No.17449 of 2008 ﬁled this appeal under Clause 15 of the Letter Patent seeking to assail the interlocutory order passed on 22.08.2008 in W.P.M.P.No.22667 of 2008 in W.P.No.17449 of 2008 by the learned Single Judge of this Court. The said application is ﬁled under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to suspend the operation of the license granted by the ﬁrst respondent in favour of the third respondent in Rc.No.765/2006/P&E/A3, dated 30.06.2008, pending disposal of the Writ Petition. After hearing the learned counsel on either side, the learned Single Judge granted interim suspension of the said impugned order and issued notice. Hence, the appeal. Having heard on either side and on perusal of the material available on record, prima facie, we are of the view that since the order under appeal is only an ad interim order, the appellant can as well ﬁle counter aﬃdavit and seek vacation of stay. Though he sought time for ﬁling counter, time was not granted and the impugned order was passed. Be that as it may, since the appellant is having remedy of ﬁling vacate stay application, we do not ﬁnd any reason to interdict with the same at this juncture. Subject to the above observation, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. _________________ (B.PRAKASH RAO, J) ________________ (R.KANTHA RAO, J) 1st September 2008 RRB