IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.33177 of 2011 Between: Sama Kishore Babu & others. … Petitioners And State of A.P., rep., by its Secretary Excise, Revenue (Ex.II) Department, Hyderabad & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Sri P. Venugopal Counsel for respondents 1-4 : AGP for Prohibition & Excise Counsel for respondent No.5: Sri N. Ravi Prasad This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.33177 of 2011 ORDER:- The petitioners, who are the residents of Teachers’ colony, Venkatagiri Town, filed this Writ Petition for a Mandamus to direct the official respondents not to grant Form 2-B licence to respondent No.5 for running a bar. It is the pleaded case of the petitioners that as respondent No.5 cannot be permitted to run a bar on more than one ground, such as, the location is predominantly residential area, that as per the norms, there cannot be more than one bar and that as there are already two bars in existence, another bar cannot be permitted to be established etc, detailed objections were filed before respondent No.2. The petitioners apprehend that despite those objections, respondent No.2 may grant prior permission to respondent No.5. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise representing respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Sri N. Ravi Prasad, learned counsel for respondent No.5, submitted that the Writ Petition is wholly premature, as respondent No.2 has not disposed of the application of respondent No.5 for grant of prior clearance. The learned Assistant Government Pleader further submitted that as the application of respondent No.5 is pending before respondent No.2, he will consider the objections of the petitioners before taking a decision thereon. In the light of the above submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, the Writ Petition is disposed of with the direction to respondent No.2 to consider the objections of the petitioners in accordance with law while taking a decision on the application of respondent No.5 for grant of prior clearance. As a sequel, WPMP.No.41235 of 2011 is disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 16.12.2011 ES