THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION No.24372 of 2010 DATED: 01.10.2010 Between: M/s. Mandakini Bar and Restaurant, Gandhinagar, Vijayawada, Rep. by its Proprietor V. Rama Mohana Rao .. Petitioner And Government of A.P., rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue (Excise) Department, Hyderabad, and others. .. Respondents ORDER: It appears, the petitioner namely M/s. Mandakini Bar and Restaurant was being run in a leased premises bearing Door No.26-3- 128, NRP Road, Gandhi Nagar, Vijayawada. While so, when the petitioner applied for renewal of its bar license for the year 2007-2008, one Ilapuram Arun Kumar, who purchased the premises in question from the predecessor in title, raised objections for renewal, stating that the petitioner has not obtained any lease agreement from him. Thereupon, the 4th respondent- Prohibition and Excise Superintendent, Vijayawada, rejected the petitioner’s application for renewal of the license for the year 2007-2008, vide his order dated 29.09.2007, on the ground that there is no lease deed executed in its favour for running the bar in the premises in question. The said rejection order was unsuccessfully challenged by the petitioner before this Court in W.P.No.21302 of 2007 and the writ appeal in W.A.No.567 of 2008, filed against the order dated 14.05.2008 passed in the said writ petition, is pending consideration before a Division Bench of this Court. While so, now the petitioner claims to have submitted a representation dated 16.09.2010 to the 2nd respondent- Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, A.P., Hyderabad, seeking permission to shift its premises from the premises in question to the premises at Ambapuram of Vijayawada, and to renew its license. The petitioner also claims to have requested in the said representation to adjust five months’ license fee paid by it for the year 2007-2008 towards the license fee for the present year, as in the year 2007-2008, though it paid license for eight months, it could conduct business only for three months on account of rejection of renewal. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the said representation is not yet considered and no orders are passed by the 2nd respondent till date. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise. Admittedly, when the petitioner applied for renewal of its license for the year 2007-2008, the same was rejected, on the ground that there is no lease deed in its favour to run the bar in the premises in question, and the same is the subject matter of W.A.No.567 of 2008, which is still stated to be pending before a Division Bench of this Court. Thus, there is no license in favour of the petitioner as on date. However, the petitioner contends that it obtained new premises for running the bar and restaurant and hence, there would be no impediment for the 2nd respondent to renew its license, by permitting it to shift the premises to new place. Whether the license of the petitioner, which is not renewed after expiry of the license period, can be renewed at this stage or not, is a matter to be decided by the 2nd respondent with reference to relevant laws. In the circumstances, as the representation submitted by the petitioner for renewal of its license as well as permission for shifting of its premises is still pending before the 2nd respondent, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with the following directions: “The 2nd respondent is directed to consider the representation dated 16.09.2010 submitted by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders as per law, as expeditiously as possible.” The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. __________________ JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA 1st October, 2010 IBL