✦ Andhra Pradesh High Court · 19 Nov 2025

M/S. NARASIMHA RESTAURANT AND BAR v. THE STATE OF A P

TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO4 min read

Case at a glance

Outcome

Dismissed

Therefore, the Writ Petition is dismissed for non prosecution

Provisions considered

Judgment

Cause title

1. M/S. NARASIMHA RESTAURANT AND BAR, REP BY ITS LICENSEE HOLDER, SMT. G. PREMA, W/O. G.V. CHALAPATHI NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. 15-5-4-5, R.R.N COLONY, MADANAPALLE, CHITTOOR DISTRICT - 517 325.

2. M/S. KALPANA RESTAURANT AND BAR, REP BY ITS S/O. LATE S.L. LICENSEE HOLDER, S. SURENDRA, NAGABHUSHANAM, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. D.NO. 24-47, LAKSHMINAGAR COLONY, MUNICIPAL KONGAREDDYPALLI, CORPORATION, CHITTOOR DISTRICT, A.P. CHITTOOR

3. M/S. MAYURI RESTAURANT AND BAR, REP BY ITS LICENSEE HOLDER, M. MOHAN BABU, S/O. M. JANAKIRAMA NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O.D.NO.25-527/2, CHENNAI TO BENGALURU ROAD, REDDIGUNTA, CHITTOOR.

4. M/S. NIRMALA RESTAURANT AND BAR, REP BY ITS LICENSEE, K.P. SIVAKUMAR, S/O. K.R. PALANI, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. 1-35, OLD THIRUTHANI ROAD, KATTAMANCHI, CHITTOOR - 517 001. 5. M/S. SREE RAJASREE RESTAURANT AND BAR,, REP. BY ITS LICENSEE HOLDER, K. VISWANATH REDDY, S/O VENKATA RAMI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O.CHOKKANDLAPALLE, RAMASAMUDRAM, CHOKKANDLAPALLE MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT - 517 417. AND ...PETITIONER(S)

1. THE STATE OF A P, REP BY ITS SPL CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, REVENUE VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. DEPARTMENT, (E-II)

2. THE COMMISSIONER OF PROHIBITION AND EXCISE, 88-2B, POULTRY FARM ROAD, SER CENTRE, PRASADAMPADU, CURRENCY NAGAR, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT - 521 108

3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF PROHIBITION AND 2 EXCISE, CHITTOOR, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.

4. THE SUPERINTENDENT, PROHIBITION AND EXCISE DEPARTMENT MITTOOR, CHITTOOR DISTRICT - 517 001,

5. THE DEPOT MANAGER, A.P.S.B.C.L., NEAR JUICE FACTORY, KRISHNAPURAM, VALASAPALLE VILLAGE, PUNGANURU ROAD, MADANAPALLE, CHITTOOR DISTRICT - 517 325

6. THE DEPOT MANAGER, A.P.S.B.C.L., ODDEPALLI VILLAGE, CHINNAKALIKI POST, PUTHALAPATTU 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 to pleased to issue a Writ or Order or direction more particularly one in the nature Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction on the part of the respondent Nos.1 to 6 in disposing the unsold beer bottles of 1st petitioner that are already expired and are going to be expired, which are in number 8580, unsold beer bottles of 2nd petitioner that are going to be expired, which are in number 2810, the unsold beer bottles of 3rd petitioner that are going to be expired, which are in number 4008 bottles, the unsold beer bottles of 4th petitioner that are going to be expired, which are in number 2472 bottles and the 5th petitioner's bar and restaurant is having unsold beer that is going to be expired, which are in number 2900 bottles of various brands as per the respective stock registers is as illegal, arbitrary and against to Law and consequently direct the respondent Nos.1 to 6 to dispose the unsold beer bottles of 1st petitioner that are already expired and are going to be expired, which are in number 8580, the unsold beer bottles of 2nd petitioner that are going to be expired, which are in number 2810, the unsold beer bottles of 3rd petitioner that are going to be expired, which are in number 4008, the unsold beer bottles of 4th petitioner that are going to be expired, which are in number 2472 bottles and the 4th petitioner's bar and restaurant is having unsold beer that is going to be expired, which are in number 2900 bottles of various brands as per the respective stock registers or to replace the same with new stocks after granting permission to open the petitioners bar and restaurants and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2020 praying Petition under Section 151 CPC circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to direct the respondents 1 to 6 in disposing the unsold beer bottles of 1st petitioner that are already expired and are going to be expired, which are in number 8580, the unsold beer bottles of 2nd petitioner that are going to be expired, which are in number 2810, the unsold beer bottles of 3rd petitioner that are going to be expired, which are in number 4008, the unsold beer bottles of 4th petitioner that are going to be expired, which are in 3 number 2472 bottles and the 4th petitioner's bar & restaurant is having unsold beer that is going to be expired, which are in number 2900 bottles of various brands as per the respective stock registers, pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2020 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 list the matter for admission at the earliest in view of the urgency and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

1. G ESWARAIAH Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR PROHIBITION EXCISE 2. KOTAMRAJU VENKATESH SARMA (SC FOR APBCL AND APSBCL) The Court made the following: 4 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.14152 of 2020

ORDER:-

Operative part

Despite the writ petition being listed under the caption ‘for dismissal’, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioners. Hence, it indicates that the petitioners are 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. Date: 19.11.2025 KBN ___________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO 5 12 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.14152 of 2020 Date: 19.11.2025 KBN

Questions this judgment answers

What did the Court decide in this case?

The Court recorded the following disposition: Therefore, the Writ Petition is dismissed for non prosecution

Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?

Constitution of India — art. 226; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. 151.

Which court decided this case, and when?

Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 19 Nov 2025. The bench was TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO.

Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case

No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.

This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Andhra Pradesh High Court or eCourts case status. ← Search more judgments