IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 1586 of 2002 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated ______ in WP NO : 23338 OF 2001 on the file of the High Court.) Between: 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh Excise Department, Rep. by its Secretary, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Commissioner of Proh. & Excise, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 3 The Proh. & Excise Superintendent, Guntur, Guntur District. ..... APPELLANT(S) AND Kommineni Hanumantha Rao, S/o. Rattaiah, Licence of M/s. Prasad Wines, R/o. Koritipadu, Guntur. .....RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellant:GP FOR PROHIBITION & EXCISE Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.A.JAGANNATHA RAO The Court made the following : HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI & HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO :1586 of 2002 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Sanjay Kumar) The Excise Department of the State filed this appeal aggrieved by the order dated 30.7.2002 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.23338 of 2001, holding that the writ petitioner/respondent herein was entitled to refund of the proportionate rentals and licence fee for the period from 20-5-1998 to 31.3.1999 during which time, the writ petitioner could not conduct business, owing to the cancellation of his license. Learned Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise relied upon the Full Bench judgments of this Court in SRI NARASIMHA WINES AND OTHERS v. PROHIBITION AND EXCISE SUPERINTENDENT, MEDAK DISTRICT AT SANGAREDDY AND OTHERS ([1]) and in W.P.No:15904 of 1994 i n M/S S.L.V.WINES REPRESENTED BY IT’S PROPRIETOR, S.VENKATAIAH, S/O VENKATANNA VS. STATE OF A.P. REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, EXCISE (REVENUE) & OTHERS to support his contention that the respondent was not entitled to refund of the licence fee and rentals for the periods during which his licence was cancelled. The Full Bench of this Court in M/S S.L.V. WINES’ case was seized of a similar issue, where the licensee had remitted the 1st installment after deducting the licence fee for the period of 48 days during which his shop was allegedly closed. Having referred to the precedential law on this aspect, including the earlier full bench judgment of this Court in SRI NARASIMHA WINES AND OTHERS v. PROHIBITION AND EXCISE SUPERINTENDENT, MEDAK DISTRICT AT SANGAREDDY AND OTHERS, this Court held that the licencee was not entitled to any remission of the licence fee paid by him during which period his licence stands cancelled or suspended. Remission is envisaged only when the licence is withdrawn or the shop is ordered to be closed by a competent authority, otherwise than by cancellation of suspension of licence. The issue is therefore squarely covered by the un- reported judgment in M/S. S.L.V.WINES REPRESENTED BY IT’S PROPRIETOR S.VENKATAIAH, SON OF VENKATANNA RESIDENT OF MYDUKUR TOWN, CUDDAPAH DISTRICT v. THE STATE OF A.P. REPRESENTED BY PRL. SECRETARY, EXCISE (REVENUE) SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, HYDERABAD AND OTHERS AND the licencee is bound to pay the licence fee and the rentals for the full period. The Writ Appeal is accordingly allowed setting aside the order in W.P.No.23338 of 2001. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________________ Justice T. MEENA KUMARI ________________________ Justice SANJAY KUMAR Dated 1st July, 2009. Dvs/Gurc HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI & HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO :1586 of 2002 (Judgment of the Division Bench delivered by Hon’ble Sri Justice Sanjay Kumar) Dated 1st July, 2009. [1] 2001 (6) ALT 240 (FB)