IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 8618 of 2008 Between: M/s. New Amrutha Bar & Restaurant, H. No. 4-1-938, First Floor Tilakroad, Abids, Hyderabad, rep by its Proprietor, Smt. Y. Koteswarai W/o Y. Radhakrishna Reddy aged 65 years. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad City, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad. 2 The Deputy Commissioner of Police Central Zone, Hyderabad. 3 The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Taskforce, Central Zone, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.B.KAMALAKARA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following : ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus to declare the inaction of the respondents, in considering the petitioner’s application for renewing Police license for running a bar and restaurant, as arbitrary and illegal. Heard Sri B.Kamalakara Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home. The Police license in favour of the petitioner was not renewed on the ground that he has not provided sufficient parking place. The petitioner filed W.P.No.1695 of 2008, which was disposed of by this Court on 25-03-2008, in view of memo dated 28-02- 2008, with the observation that the petitioner is given liberty either to comply with the conditions contained in the said memo or question the same. On 04-04- 2008, the petitioner made a representation to respondent No.2 wherein he expressed his willingness to comply with the conditions contained in the said memo and requested to renew the license. Feeling aggrieved by the inaction of respondent No.2, on his representation dated 04-04-2008, the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition. At the hearing, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that on 23-04-2008, respondent No.2 called upon the petitioner to submit all the documents in support of his claim that he has complied with all the conditions contained in memo dated 28-02-2008. He stated that though the petitioner submitted all the documents earlier along with his representation dated 04-04-2008, he once again submitted those documents on 24-04-2008 in response to the notice dated 23-04-2008 given by respondent No.3, but no decision is taken as yet by respondent No.2. Having regard to the above-mentioned facts, the Writ Petition is disposed of with the direction to respondent No.2 to take a decision on the petitioner’s application for renewal of license with reference to the documents filed by him. If it is found that the petitioner complied with the conditions contained in memo dated 28-02-2008, respondent No.2 shall grant license within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If respondent No.2 is not satisfied about the petitioner complying with the conditions contained in the above-mentioned memo, within the above-mentioned time, he shall pass a reasoned order and communicate the same to the petitioner immediately to enable him to question the same in appropriate proceedings. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.11428 of 2008 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ____________________ (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) 25-04-2008 LUR