IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.25498 of 2005 Date: 19th October, 2010 Between: Y.Kamal Kumar Reddy .. Petitioner And The Proh. & Excise Superintendent, Chittoor and others. .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.25498 of 2005 ORAL ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in insisting payment of final instalments of licence fee of Rs.5,55,500/- without granting remission of Rs.2,78,840/- during which period the shop was remain closed i.e. from 31.8.2005 to 31.10.2005 as arbitrary, illegal and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and consequently declare that the respondents are not entitled to collect licence fee for the said period. It appears, for the excise year 2005-06, Shop No.3, Ward No.5 of Tirupati Municipality, Chittoor district was auctioned and it was knocked down in favour of petitioner for an amount of Rs.16,50,500/- as against the upset price of Rs.9,00,000/-. According to the petitioner, second respondent personally visited his shop, which is in the name and style of M/s Yalamuri Wines at premises bearing D.No.5-5-326-B, Reservoir Road, Ramakrishna Paradise Complex, Road No.3, Tirupati and recommended for grant of licence vide his report dated 17.6.2005. Based on the said report, petitioner was granted licence in Form A4 on 30.6.2005 for sale of Indian Liquor and Foreign Liquor. While that being so, one C.Prasada Reddy and another filed W.P.No.14046 of 2005 questioning the licence granted in favour of petitioner and obtained interim orders on 19.8.2005 in W.P.M.P.No.17827 of 2005 and in pursuance of the said interim orders, the first respondent passed stay orders in Procs.Rc.No.926/05/A1 dated 30.8.2005 in respect of petitioner’s A4 licence. Pursuant to the said proceedings, the second respondent conducted panchanama and closed and sealed the premise on 31.8.2005. However, the said Writ Petition No.14046 of 2005 was disposed of on 5.10.2005 directing the Excise Authorities to consider the matter afresh after conducting a detailed enquiry. On 29.10.2005, the first respondent conducted enquiry as per the orders of this Court and held that the objections raised by the petitioners therein are untenable. Thus, on 30.10.2005 the shop of the petitioner was unlocked and he was permitted to conduct the business. The grievance of the petitioner is that he could not conduct the business in view of closure of shop by the Excise authorities at the instance of some third parties from 31.8.2005 to 31.10.2005, therefore he sought for proportionate remission of licence fee for the said period. However, the respondents insisted upon for payment of final settlement of licence fee. Hence this writ petition. This Court, while admitting the writ petition on 13.11.2005, directed the respondents not to demand the proportionate amount for the period from 31.8.2005 to 29.10.2005 during which period the shop of the petitioner was kept closed. Counter is filed justifying the demand made by the respondents. There is no necessity of going into all the details. It is not in dispute that during 31.8.2005 to 31.10.2005 the shop of the petitioner was closed and locked by the Excise authorities in view of the orders of this Court and the petitioner could not run his business during that period. Therefore, the question is as to whether the petitioner is entitled for proportionate remission of licence fee for the period from 31.8.2005 to 31.10.2005 or not. This issue is no more resintegra in view of the judgment of this Court in MANCHIKA SRINIVAS v. COMMISSIONER OF PROHIBITION AND EXCISE, HYDERABAD[1], wherein in a similar set of facts, this Court held that petitioner is entitled to proportionate remission of licence fees for the period for which he could not run the shop and the State is bound by the acts of the Courts and is liable to compensate the party who suffered loss due to the orders of the Courts. In view of the same, the respondents are directed not to collect rentals for the period from 31.8.2005 to 31.10.2005 in respect of A4 licence granted in favour of the petitioner. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs. ______________ C.V.RAMULU, J Date: 19.10.2010 DA THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.25498 of 2005 19.10.2010 [1] 1999 (5) ALD 118