APHC010711742017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3330] WEDNESDAY,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 13269/2017 Between: 1. A M REDDY, S/O. MUNIKRISHNA REDDY, 44 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, LICENSEE OF M/S. CHINNI WINES, MALLAMGUNTA VILLAGE, TIRUPATHI RURAL MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. STATE OF AP PRL SCY REVENUE GUNTUR DIST 4, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE (EXCISE-II) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE COMMISSIONR OF PROHIBITION EXCISE, ANDHRA PRADESH, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF PROHIBITION EXCISE, TIRUPATHI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT, 4. THE PROHIBITION EXCISE SUPERINTENDENT CHITTOOR DISTRICT, 5. MR T SUBBA REDDY, S/O. GANAPA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. H.NO.1-3, VEDANTHAPURAM, TIRUPATHI RURAL MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased toto issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more in the nature of Mandamus, declaring the notification issued by the 4th respondent herein in respect of shop notified at Gazette SI.no. CT/264 in Gazette No. 21/2017 dated 24.3.2017 and consequential action in granting kence in favour of 5th respondent to open shop anywhere in Tirupathi Rural Mandal within 5 Kilo meters periphery from Tirupathi ,Municipal Corporation as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the rules IA NO: 1 OF 2017(WPMP 16468 OF 2017 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct respondents 2 to 4 not to grant licence in respect of shop notified at Gazettei.no. Ct/264 dated 2 24.3.2017 anywhere in Tirupathi Rural Mandal within 5 Kilo meters periphery from Tirupathi Municipal Corporation, pending the disposa of the above WP Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. RAJANIKANTH JWALA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR PROHIBITION & EXCISE (AP) 2. K RATHANGA PANI REDDY The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.13269 of 2017 ORDER:- Despite the writ petition being listed under the caption ‘for dismissal’, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner. Hence, it indicates that the petitioner is not interested in prosecuting the writ petition. Therefore, the Writ Petition is dismissed for non prosecution. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Date: 19.11.2025 KBN 4 13 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.13269 of 2017 Date: 19.11.2025 KBN