IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY MONDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN WRIT PETITION No.491 of 2011 Between: Pullappagudem Anjaiah and another. … Petitioners And The Superintendent of Prohibition and Excise, Rajendranagar, Ranga Reddy District, reptd., by its Inspector of Prohibition & Excise(SHO) Chevella, Chevella Circle & Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. … Respondent Counsel for the petitioners: Sri Bollepalli Sai Ram Goud. Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Prohibition & Excise. This Court made the following: ORDER:- This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to direct the respondent not to interfere with the petitioners’ toddy business in respect of counter Nos.2 and 3 of Sardarnagar village toddy shops (covered by TFT licences), Shabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, as illegal arbitrary. The petitioners are holders of TFT licences. Their grievance is that even though no inspection was made and samples were drawn, the respondent has been unlawfully interfering with their business of running the toddy counters. It is their further case that so far their TFT licences are neither been suspended nor cancelled. At the hearing, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise, on instructions, submitted that the officials of the Excise Department have inspected the petitioners’ premises and drawn the toddy samples on 12-2-2011; that the samples were sent for analysis; and that the report is awaited. She further stated that the licences of the petitioners have not been suspended so far. So long as the licences of the petitioners remain in force, the respondent or his subordinates shall not interfere with their running of the toddy shops under the subsisting TFT licences. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed restraining the respondent and his subordinates from interfering with the petitioners’ business of running TFT (toddy) counter Nos.2 and 3 at Sardarnagar village, Shabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. This order, however, does not preclude the respondent and his subordinates from acting in accordance with law on receipt of the analysis report. As a sequel, WPMP No.614 of 2011 is disposed of as infructuous. ------------------------------------ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date:14-11-2011 MNR