IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 3745 of 2009 Between: T C S Zaheerabad, Medak District, Rep by its President, V.Ashok Goud S/o. V.Vithal Goud. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 2 The Prohibition and excise Superintendent, Medak District at Sanga Reddy. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS or any othr appropriate Writ or Writs, order or Direction, declaring the action of Respondents in not considering the representation dated 12.2.2009 made by petitioner along with Resolution dated 30.08.2008 of General body of Petitioner society for the purpose of reviving the petitioner society by granting fresh licence under rule 39 of AP Excise (Grant of Licence to sell Toddy, Conditions of Licence and Tapping of Excise Trees) rules, 2007 issued by Government vide GO Ms.No.1228 dated 19-9-2007 as illegal and arbitrary by consequently direction the Respondents to forthwith consider the above representation of petitioner for reviving the petitioner society by granting fresh licence; Award costs and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.N.SRIDHAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR PROHIBITION & EXCISE The Court made the following : O R D E R:- The petitioner-society asserts that one V.Ashok Goud was elected as its President in the General Body Meeting held on 30.8.2008, and he made a representation, dated 12.2.2009 to the respondents for considering the resolutions made by the General Body of the petitioner- society for its revival as per Rules issued by the Government in G.O. Ms. No. 1228, dated 19.9.2007, known as A.P. Excise (Grant of Licences to Sell Toddy, Conditions of Licence & Tapping of Excise Trees) Rules, 2007 (hereafter after referred to as ‘the Rules’) and its grievance is that the respondents have not passed any orders thereon so far. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that Rule 39 of the Rules empowers the respondents to consider the resolutions made by the General Body of the petitioner-society for its revival by granting fresh licence, and having regard to the fact that the petitioner, based on the resolutions passed by the society, has made representation for revival of its licences, the respondents be directed to consider and dispose of the representation made by the petitioner for revival of the licence. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise appearing for the respondents. Having regard to the provisions of Rule 39 of the Rules, which empowers the respondents to consider the cases of revival of licences of the societies, both the counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise, agreed to the disposal of the writ petition with the following directions: “The respondents are directed to consider the representation dated 12.2.2009, said to have been filed by the petitioner-society, for revival of its licence, and pass appropriate orders thereon, in accordance with the law, expeditiously”. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. ______________ N.V.RAMANA, J 26th February, 2009 bcj