IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 26437 of 2008 Between: Vattikuti Nageswara Rao, S/o. Late Gopalam, of M/s. Venakateswara Wines, D.No. 31-1-50, Ward No. 28, Allipuram, Assam Gardens, Visakhapatnam, r/o. M.V.P. Colony, Visakhapatnam. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commissioner, Prohibition & Excise Department, Andhra Pradesh, Nampally, Hyderabad. 2 The Deputy Commissioner, Prohibition & Excise Department, Visakhapatnam. 3 The Superintendent, Prohibition & Excise Department, Visakhapatnam. 4 M/s. Sai Ram Restaurant & Bar, Rep by its Proprietor S. Suraj Kumar, S/o. not known, 7-142/1, Wad No. 3, Sanjay Nagar Colony, Arilaova Colony, Visakhapatnam. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.K.V.SUBRAHMANYA NARUSU Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 3: GP FOR PROHIBITION & EXCISE Counsel for Respondent No.4: ---- The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for the following substantive relief: “to issue a Writ, Order or Direction, particularly, a Writ in the nature of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 1st respondent herein, in passing an ex parte order dated 27-11-2008, permitting the 4th respondent herein to shift his M/s. Sai Ram Restaurant and Bar from Door No. 7- 142/1, Ward No. 3, Sanjaynagar Colony, Mudasarlova Road to Door No. 31-1-1, Ward No. 28, Assam Garden, South Jail Road, Visakhapatnam, even without giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner herein as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently declare the order of the 1st respondent herein in Cr.No. 12735/2008/CPE/G4, dated 27-11-2008 and the consequential order of the 3rd respondent herein in proceedings Rc.No. 364/2008/A3, dated 29-11-2008, as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of principles of natural justice.” Sri K.V.Subrahmanya Narusu, learned Counsel for the petitioner, stated that the cause in the Writ Petition does not survive for consideration, and therefore, the Writ Petition has become infructuous. In view of the same, the Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, WVMP.Nos.3968 and 4147 of 2008 and WPMP.No.34664 of 2008 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ___________________________ (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) 17th June, 2009 LUR