THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO : 1917 of 2001 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy) This writ appeal is directed against order dated 17.9.2001 in WP No.10127 of 2001 whereby the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition. The facts in brief are that the appellant is one of the applicants for grant of IL-24 licence in respect of one of the shops in Tirupathi Rural Mandal. The notification specified the ZP meeting hall, Chittoor as the venue for conducting selection process among the applicants. 11.5.2001 at 11.00 a.m., was fixed as the date and time for the said purpose. The appellant obtained challan for Rs.5,000/-in Sub- Treasury, Tirupathi and obtained two demand drafts for a sum of Rs.49,000/- and 46,000/- respectively towards 1/3rd of the annual licence fee. He submitted the challan and demand drafts along with his application under acknowledgement. The appellant claimed that he started for reaching the venue at Chittoor in a vehicle, but his vehicle gave some trouble and he reached the venue 30 minutes late, by which time, the drawal of lots for selecting the applicants in respect of Tirupathi Rural Mandal was completed. The appellant was not present at the venue when the drawal of lots in respect of the shop for which he made application, has taken place. The appellant averred in his affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that when he was informed about the rejection of his application and forfeiture of the amounts furnished by him on account of his absence at the time of drawal of lots, he orally protested with the respondents and requested them to reconsider his application as he was prevented by bonafide cause from being present at the time of drawal of lots and that as his request was not accepted, he gave a written representation by way of a telegram to respondent No.1 on 11.5.2001 itself to consider his application for granting licence. Apprehending that the respondents may give the licence to another applicant, the appellant filed WP No.10127 of 2001 for a writ of mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in rejecting his application for grant of IL-24 licence and forfeiting the deposit made towards 1/3rd of the annual licence fee. The learned single Judge relying on Rule 31(4)(e) of the Andhra Pradesh Indian Liquor and Foreign Liquor Rules, 1970 (for short “the 1970 Rules”) declined the relief to the appellant. The learned single Judge considered the purpose, for which the above mentioned rule, was framed and held that the action of the respondents in not granting licence or refunding the deposit amount cannot be termed as arbitrary. We have heard Sri Balaji, learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise for the respondents. At the relevant point of time, the system of drawal of lots was prescribed for selecting the licencees for selling liquor in retail. The appellant admittedly emerged successful in drawal of lots in respect of one of the shops. The only ground on which he was denied grant of licence is that he was not present at the time when the lot was drawn. We have carefully considered the reasons given by the learned single Judge in upholding the validity of the rule and we do not find any reason to differ with his views on this issue. As far as IL-24 licence is concerned, admittedly, the period for which the licence was applied for by the appellant has expired. Therefore, no relief in that regard can be considered in this writ appeal. The only issue that remains to be considered is whether the respondents are justified in forfeiting the deposit amount paid by the appellant on the interpretation of Rule 31(4)(e) of the Rules. The learned Government Pleader submitted that irrespective of the reason of absence at the time of auction, the deposit paid by the appellant shall stand forfeited and he will not be entitled to be granted the licence. In our considered view, Rule 31(4)(e) is required to be interpreted in a reasonable and rational manner. The law is well settled that no statutory provision can be interpreted in a manner, which will lead to incongruous and anomalous situations. There may be cases, where for bonafide reasons an applicant may be disabled from being present at the venue at the time of drawal of lots. If he is prevented by sufficient cause from being present, the above mentioned rule shall not be pressed into service to deny either grant of licence or refund of deposits at the request of the applicant. In the instant case, the fact that the appellant has sent a representation, is not disputed. While the appellant claims that on the same day of drawal of lots, he sent his representation through telegram, the respondents admitted receipt of such representation on the next day. If the reason assigned by the appellant for his delayed arrival at the venue viz., break down of the car, is correct, we do not see any justification for the respondents to forfeit the appellant’s deposit. The rule can be construed as an enabling provision vesting a fair amount of discretion in the authority in the matter of forfeiture or the selection of the appellant, as the case may be. If the authority on discreet enquiries is satisfied that the appellant is prevented by sufficient cause from being present or his absence was due to reasons beyond his control, the above mentioned rule does not preclude the authorities from considering the application of the appellant for grant of licence or refunding deposits paid by the appellant. Interpreting this rule in any other manner would be in violation of doctrine of fairness and Article 14 of the Constitution of India, which posits principle of reasonableness and nonarbitrariness. Though the appellant has made a representation immediately, the respondents failed to consider the same. To know, whether the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause as claimed by him from being present, they ought to have made an enquiry into the claim of the appellant and if they found that he had come out with a reasonable cause they should have considered his request either for granting licence or atleast for refunding the deposit. For the above mentioned reasons, we dispose of the writ appeal, with a direction to respondent No.2 to consider the claim of the appellant for refund of deposit, on the strength of the representation made by the appellant, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order and pass appropriate order and communicate the same to the appellant. ________________________ Justice T. Meena Kumari _____________________________ Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy Dated: 11th February, 2009 Nn. THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO : 1917 of 2001 (Judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy) 11.2.2009