“….to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of Mandamus, declaring the inaction of the respondents in not granting/ replying/ responding to the applications and representations of the petitioners for grant of license for establishment and conduct of micro-breweries attached to restaurants at Rajahmundry, Nellore and Vijayawada, having granted the prior clearance is illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the 2^nd respondent to grant the license to the petitioner for establishment and conduct of micro breweries attached to the restaurant at Rajahmundry, Nellore and Vijayawada without any further loss of time”.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. Though, notice before admission was ordered by this Court, the respondents are not chosen to file their counters.

¶8

Learned Senior Counsel appearing for petitioners would contend that this Writ Petition is filed questioning the respondents in not responding to the applications/ representations of the petitioners and this Court ordered notice before admission. Since the respondents are not chosen to file their counters, requested this Court to dispose of the Writ Petition at the admission stage.

¶9

The petitioners is a Private limited company applied for “prior clearance” for establishment of micro-breweries at Rajahmundry, Nellore and Vijayawada under Rule 2(ss) of The Andhra Pradesh Brewery Rules, 2006 and granted prior clearance on 06.03.2019 and in view of the same, the petitioners have also procured the requisite machinery by investing huge amounts.

¶10

¶11

Subsequently, the petitioners have applied to the 2^nd respondent for grant of necessary license for carrying out the above said activity by way of representations with a request to grant of license for establishment and operation of micro breweries. Despite, repeated requests, the respondent authorities have not considered the application made by the petitioners. Hence this Writ Petition is filed.

¶12

Learned Government Pleader appearing for Respondents stated that in view of the Covid-19 pandemic, the respondent authorities could not be able to consider the applications/ representations of the petitioners and seeks some reasonable time, so as to consider the same and pass appropriate orders.

¶13

Considering the submissions of the learned counsel, this Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents 1 to 3 to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner on 11.06.2019 in accordance with law and pass appropriate reasoned order within a period of eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and communicate the same to the petitioners.

¶14

Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶15

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed.

¶16

JUSTICE D. RAMESH

Date: 17.03.2021

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D. RAMESH

¶21

WRIT PETITION No.2892 OF 2021

¶22

Date: 17.03.2021

¶23

Sri Lakshmi Sai Enterprises, v. The Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Sri Lakshmi Sai Enterprises, v. The Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

N.Malikkarjuna Reddy,Kurnool Dist,Andanot Vs Commissioner,Proh.Excise,Hyd,and 4

B.v.Subba Reddy, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Naseeb Mining Company Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

T Ramachandrappa Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Ramoju Satyavati, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Batchala Anasuyamma, Vs Sri. Gopala Krishna Dwivedi