LAKSHMI WINES Vs. COMMISSINER OF PROHIBITION AND EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is filed questioning the action of respondent No. 1 in proposing to permit respondent No. 4 to shift the bar and restaurant at a place where the petitioners are running their liquor shops under form A-4 licences.

(2.) HAVING carefully considered the averments contained in the affidavit and heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners, i am of the view that the writ petition is premature. The petitioners filed this writ petition only on apprehension that respondent no. 1 may permit shifting of the business of respondent No. 4. They have pleaded that they filed objection petitions on 24. 6. 2009 and 29. 6. 2009 before respondent Nos. 1 to

(3.) I do not find any reason for respondent nos. 1 to 3 to ignore the objection petitions filed by the petitioners before permitting respondent No. 4 to shift the business. 3. In this view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction to respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to objectively consider the objections of the petitioners stated to have been filed by them to the proposed shifting of the business by respondent No. 4 strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968 and the extant rules governing the businesses of the petitioners and respondent No. 4. If the petitioners feel aggrieved by any order passed by respondent Nos. 1 to 3, they shall be free to question the same by availing appropriate remedy.