IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 4538 of 2005 Between: P. Chinna Ramudu, S/o. Ramaiah, Worker R/o. D.No.1-294, S.t.colony, Chinna Chowk, Kadapa Mandal and District. ..... PETITIONER AND The Superintendent of Prohibition & Excise, Kadapa, Kadapa District. .....RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to Issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of rit of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in demanding the petitiones herein to pay Rs. 1,03,324-30 Ps. in his Rc.No.C1/1991/90 dt. 25.06.2004 without issuing any notice, without enquiry and without identifying the correct person as illegal, unjust, arbitrary and agaisnt the principles of natural justice and also agaisnt the provisions of Limitation Act and statutory provisions and consequently set aside the orders passed by the respodnent in his Rc.No.C1/1991/90 dt. 25.06.2004 and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.L.J.VEERA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent: GP FOR PROHIBITION & EXCISE The Court made the following Order: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.4538 of 2005 ORDER: The petitioner is resident of Chinna Chowk, Kadapa Mandal and District. He ﬁled instant writ petition impugning notice dated 25.06.2004 issued by the respondent. By the impugned notice the petitioner was informed about the policy of the Government as envisaged in G.O.Ms.No.320 dated 10.06.2002 with regard to waiver of penal interest on principal amount of past excise arrears as one time settlement (OTS). The petitioner was informed to avail said opportunity on or before 30.09.2004, failing which coercive action will be taken under Section 48 of the Andhra Pradesh Revenue Recovery Act, 1864. The case of the petitioner is that he never participated in the auction for leasing out the arrack shops and that he was never an arrack contractor for Kammavaripalli Village. He also denies that he was ever given licence much less for the year 1989-1990. However, it appears that the impugned notice was issued to one P. Ramudu but the excise oﬃcials called the petitioner by name P. Chinna Ramudu to the excise police station. Therefore, he filed instant writ petition. The respondent ﬁled a detailed counter-aﬃdavit. The contents of the same in brief are as follows. For the year 1989-1990 as per the Government policy to sell arrack shops by way of minimum guarantee quota (MGQ) at the privileged fee, the arrack shops at Buggaletipally, Bayanapalli, Kolumulapalli and Kammavaripalli Villages were auctioned on 10.09.1989. The petitioner’s original name is Penugonda Ramudu S/o Ramaiah, a resident of Chinna Chowk, Kadapa District. He participated in the auction for four shops in said Villages and was successful in the auction. He was issued licences to run the shops up to July, 1990. He failed to remit the privileged fee. Therefore, the shops were re-auctioned on 03.08.1990. As the petitioner fell in arrears to the tune of Rs.1,03,320.30ps movables were attached. The defaulter - petitioner was asked to pay the arrears due to the Government, but he did not pay the amount instigating issuance of notice dated 16.09.2002. The same was served on the petitioner, who acknowledged the same by putting his thumb impression. A subsequent notice was also issued on 25.06.2004, which is impugned in this writ petition, and the same was also served on the petitioner. The movables of the petitioner were auctioned and an amount of Rs.4,950/- was recovered. After the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.320 dated 10.06.2002, the impugned notice was issued to the petitioner. With regard to the identity of the person/defaulter, while denying the allegation that P. Chinna Ramudu is not P. Ramudu, the Superintendent of Excise, Kadapa, states in the counter-affidavit as follows. It is further submitted that at the time of bidding for one of the above shops i.e., Kammavaripalli another two persons along with petitioner have participated in the bid oﬀering the bid and while recording in bid register it was written that the petitioner’s name as P. Chinna Ramudu and striked the middle name i.e., “Chinna” and the shop was knocked down in favour of P. Ramudu. From the above it is clear that the defaulter P. Ramudu and the petitioner P. Chinna Ramudu is one and the same, but to avoid payment of arrears to the Government the petitioner has named him as P. China Ramudu instead of P. Ramudu and obtained the ration card, with a future thought. It is also submitted that when he was issued a notice in the year 2002 he laws affixed his thumb impression on the notice and further on the panchayatnama of the moveables destrained, but where as the defaulter has signed in the auction register bid register and hall ticket register as “P. Ramudu”. Sri P. Ramudu the defaulter is residing at D.No.1/294, Chinna Chowk, when the moveables were detrained in the year 2003 and the petitioner is also residing in the same house. The notice issued to the defaulter for availment of One Time Settlement which was served on 25-6-2004 in which the defaulter has aﬃxed a thumb impression when the petitioner is of no concern about the due amount to the Government he should have approached the Court of the superior oﬃcers in the year 2003 itself when his moveables were destrained. Thus it is very clear that as aforesaid the petitioner has manipulated the things in obtaining Ration Card mentioned his name as P. Chinna Ramudu. This Court heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise. Though the counter-aﬃdavit was ﬁled on 03.04.2008 duly serving a copy thereof on the learned counsel for the petitioner, no reply-aﬃdavit is ﬁled. Therefore, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner never participated in the auction for arrack shops cannot be accepted. It is well settled that unrebutted counter averments are deemed to have been admitted. Having regard to said principle, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted. Further as rightly pointed out by the learned Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise the respondent has not initiated any coercive action against the petitioner as of now. The impugned notice is only intimation calling upon the petitioner to avail OTS. It is for the petitioner to approach the authorities and avail the oﬀer made by the department of excise. The writ petition is devoid of any merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _____________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 29th October, 2008 GHN To 1. The Superintendent of Prohibition & Excise, Kadapa, Kadapa District. 2 2CCs to GP for Prohibition and Excise 3. 2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{JGK}