Judgment: The relief sought for in both the Writ Petitions is for a direction to declare the action of the respondents in not considering the petitioners’ representations dated 6.7.2012/10.7.2012 as arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional. The petitioners seek a consequential direction to the respondents to renew their existing TFT licence (which was valid upto 30.9.2012) for a further block period of five years from 1.10.2012 to 30.9.2017. In their representation, the petitioners requested the 1st respondent to direct the 2nd respondent to renew their existing TFT licence which was valid upto 30.9.2012 for a further period of five years from 1.10.2012 to 30.9.2017. For the purpose of disposal of both these Writ Petitions, it would suffice if the facts in W.P. No.21006 of 2012 are noted. The petitioner had earlier invoked the jurisdiction of this Court by way of W.P. No.10475 of 2007 and this Court, by order in W.P.M.P. No.13203 of 2007 dated 16.05.2007, had directed the respondents to renew the licence of the petitioners which would be subject to the result of the cases pending if any, and department lapses if any. Thereafter this Court, in its order dated 20.6.2012, noted that the period for renewal of the petitioner’s licence from 1.4.2007 to 31.3.2012 had already expired; the Learned Government Pleader for the respondents was not in a position to state whether departmental proceedings, if any, were initiated against the petitioner; and, if so, what was the stage of the criminal case registered against the petitioner in COR No.226/2006-07 dated 18.8.2006. This Court, while disposing of the Writ Petition, observed that no further orders were needed to be passed therein. The petitioners have filed the present Writ Petitions on the ground that, for the block period from 1.10.2012 to 30.9.2017, their licences were not renewed. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 2nd respondent wherein reference is made to two alleged violations committed by petitioner which were the subject matter of Crime No.631/2002-03 and COR NO.226/2006-07 dated 18.8.2006. The petitioners have filed the present Writ Petitions on the ground that, for the block period from 1.10.2012 to 30.9.2017, their licences were not renewed. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 2nd respondent wherein reference is made to two alleged violations committed by petitioner which were the subject matter of Crime No.631/2002-03 and COR NO.226/2006-07 dated 18.8.2006. Learned Government Pleader would contend that, it is only in view of the pendency of the earlier Writ Petition, no action could be taken against the petitioner; and that the respondents were ready and willing to consider the petitioners’ applications for renewal of their licences in accordance with law; and it would suffice if this Court were to grant liberty to the respondents to initiate action against the petitioners for the offences committed by them earlier. Sri B. Sai Ram Goud, Learned Counsel for the petitioners, would rely on Malliah v. The Superintendent of Excise, Rangareddy District (1988 (1) ALT 603) and TCS Kosgi Group v. Prohibition and Excise Superintendent ( 1995 (3) ALT 760 ) in this regard to contend that, as long as the petitioners satisfy the conditions prescribed for renewal of licence, neither the A.P. Excise Act, 1968, nor the Rules made thereunder, empower the respondents to refuse to renew the licence; and, as the respondents did not take any action on the petitioners’ representations, a mandamus should be issued directing them to renew the petitioners’ licences. On the question of action being taken against the petitioners, for the offences allegedly committed by them in the years 2005 and 2006, Learned Counsel would refer to Rule 5 (2)(c) of the A.P. Excise (Grant of Licence to Sell Toddy, Conditions of Licence and Tapping of Excise Trees) Rules, 2007 to contend that it is not open to the respondents to now take action against the petitioners in view of the period of limitation prescribed under the said Rule. The relief sought for in this Writ Petition is for renewal of the licenses granted to the petitioners’ earlier. It is not in dispute that mere pendency of a criminal case, or any other action having been initiated against them, would not disable the respondents from renewing the petitioners licences if they satisfy the conditions prescribed for such renewal. The relief sought for in this Writ Petition is for renewal of the licenses granted to the petitioners’ earlier. It is not in dispute that mere pendency of a criminal case, or any other action having been initiated against them, would not disable the respondents from renewing the petitioners licences if they satisfy the conditions prescribed for such renewal. I consider it appropriate, therefore, to direct the respondents to consider the petitioners’ representations in accordance with law; and, if the conditions for grant of renewal of licence are satisfied, to pass orders, in accordance with law, regarding renewal of the licenses. It is made clear that this order shall not preclude the respondents, if they are authorized by law, from initiating action against the petitioners for violation of any of the provisions of the Act or the Rules or both. Needless to state that, before any action is taken against them, the petitioners shall be put on notice, and be given an opportunity of being heard. It is always open to the petitioners to raise all such objections as are available to them in law, including the plea of limitation, in case the respondents initiate any action against them. The entire exercise of considering the petitioners’ representations for renewal of licences, and passing orders thereupon in accordance with law, shall be completed within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. The Miscellaneous Petition pending, if any, shall also stand disposed of. However, in the circumstances, without costs.