APHC010569952024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3330] THURSDAY,THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 29679/2024 Between: 1. KATASANI JAYASUDHA @ PAGIDELA JAYASUDHA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS W/O. KATASANI THIRUMALESWAR REDDY, R/O. NANDYAL TOWN AND MANDAL, NANDYAL DISTRICT NOW RESIDING AT H.NO.SIB-305, SACHIVALAYA NAGAR, VANASTHALIPURAM, HYDERABAD, TELANGANA STATE. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT PROHIBITION AND EXCISE SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS AT VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF PROHIBITION AND EXCISE, VIJAYAWADA, ANDHRA PRADESH. 3. THE DISTRICT PROHIBITION AND EXCISE OFFICER, NANDYAL, NANDYAL DISTRICT. 4. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, PROHIBITION AND EXCISE STATION, NANDYAL, NANDYAL DISTRICT. 5. PAGIDELA RAJA REDDY, , AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS S/O. P.JOGI REDDY. R/O. D.NO.26-6C9-D, SHYAM NAGAR, NANDYAL TOWN AND MANDAL, NANDYAL DISTRICT. 2 6. SRI NANDHINI WINES, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, 7. PITTAM RAJASEKHAR REDDY, S/O. PITTAM NARAYANA REDDY R/O. EERNAPADU VILLAGE, BANDI ATMAKUR MANDAL, NANDYAL 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 to issue an appropriate order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Man damus, declaring the action of the 4th Respondent in not conducting a detailed enquiry as per the proceedings Rc.No.C1/109/2024 dated 19- 11-2024 issued by the 3rd Respondent, and the granting of license to the 6th Respondent for the establishment of a liquor shop on the Peti tioners property, as arbitrary, illegal. Unjust, mala fide, and against the principles of natural justice, besides being in violation of Articles 14, 21, and 300-A of the Constitution of India, and consequently direct the Re spondents No.2 to 4 to revoke the license granted to the 6th Respond ent, and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 pleased to suspend the license granted to the 6th Respondent for liquor shop on the Petitioner’s property pending determination of the writ petition and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2024 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 pleased to direct the 4th Respondent to conduct a detailed enquiry as per the proceedings Rc.No.C1/109/2024 dated 19-11-2024- issued by the 3rd Respondent pending de termination of the writ petition and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 May be pleased to grant leave to the petitioner to file the rejoinder affidavit and pass 3 Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. THATHIREDDY ASHOK SRIVASTAVA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR PROHIBITION EXCISE 2. K RATHANGA PANI REDDY The Court made the following: 4 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.29679 OF 2024 ORDER: The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “…to issue an appropriate order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 4th Respondent in not conducting a detailed enquiry as per the proceedings Rc.No.C1/109/2024 dated 19-11-2024 issued by the 3rd Respondent, and the granting of license to the 6th Respondent for the establishment of a liquor shop on the Petitioners property, as arbitrary, illegal, Unjust, malafide, and against the principles of natural justice, besides being in violation of Articles 14, 21, and 300-A of the Constitution of India, and consequently direct the Respondents No.2 to 4 to revoke the license granted to the 6th Respondent, and pass such other order or orders…” 2. On perusal of the material available on record, it appears that undiscriptive property was leased to the 6th respondent. Now, the petitioner and respondent No.5 are claiming rents in respect of the subject property. Admittedly, there exists a contract between the petitioner and respondent Nos.5 and 6. It is purely civil dispute between petitioner and respondent Nos.5 and 6. Hence, writ petition is not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. Therefore, if the petitioner is aggrieved, he is at liberty to file appropriate proceedings before the appropriate forum for settlement of the dispute. 5 4. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is closed. 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: 22.01.2026 KBN 6 68 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.29679 of 2024 Date: 22.01.2026 KBN