IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No: 15719 of 1998 BETWEEN: 1 Abdul Lateef S/o Gaffoor, Coromandel Fertilizers Ltd., R/o D.No.25- 185, B.C. Road, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam. 2 Y. Venkateswarlu S/o Ramayya, Coromandel Fertilizers Ltd., R/o 25-185, B.C. Road, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam. ... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise Govt. of A.P., Hyderabad. 2 The Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise Govt. of A.P., Visakhapatnam. 3 The Vice-President (Mfg & H.R.D.) Coromandel Fertilizers Ltd., P.B.No.125, Visakhapatnam. 4 A. Visweswara Rao Vice-President (Mfg & H.R.D) Coromandel Fertilizers Ltd., P.B.No.125, Visakhapatnam. 5 E. Gurunatha Rao, Coromandel Fertilizers Ltd., R/o.D.No.MIG I- 185, Chinagantyada, Visakhapatnam 6 Y. Venkata Rao (Dismissed) For default vide dated 28.3.2003 ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction especially one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus directing the 1st and 2nd respondents to exercise their statutory authority under Sections 8 to 10 of A.P. Prohibition and Excise Act, 1995 against the respondents 3 to 5 and take necessary steps in this regard and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.A.K.JAYAPRAKASH RAO Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR PROHIBITION & EXCISE MR. S. RVAVINDRANATH MR. C. R. SRIDHARAN The Court made the following: ORDER: Petitioners seek a Writ of Mandamus to direct the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise and the Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise to exercise their statutory authority under Sections 8 to 10 of the Andhra Pradesh Prohibition and Excise Act, 1995 (for short ‘the Act’) against the unofficial respondents 3 to 5. 2. Counter has been filed stating that for the involvement of the first petitioner and others in excise offence under Section 8 (b) of the Act a prohibition case in PR.No.749/96-97 dated 09.07.1997 was registered and after investigation charge sheet has been filed in C.C.No.2993 of 1998 on the file of the Special Judicial First Class Magistrate (Prohibition & Excise), Visakhapatnam and the criminal Court by judgment dated 28.06.2006 acquitted the first petitioner, who is A-3 in the said case. 3. The prayer in the writ petition, to direct the official respondents to taken action under the Act against the unofficial respondents 3 to 5, is without any basis and without any justification whatsoever. If the official respondents are not exercising their statutory duties against the unofficial respondents for the offence committed under the Act, it is always open to the petitioners to file a complaint before the Excise authorities or to file a private complaint. However, if the registration of the case against the first petitioner and others resulted in disciplinary departmental action dismissing them from their services, now that the criminal Court acquitted them, it is always open for them to take appropriate action in accordance with law either for their reinstatement or for proceeding against the concerned officials for malicious prosecution, but no relief can be granted in this writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed with the aforesaid observations. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ V. ESWARAIAH, J July 21, 2008 DSK