IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.6993 of 2003 Between: Toddy Tappers Cooperative Society, rep. by its President Mr. Y. Narayanaswamy, S/o. Nagappa, Dharmavaram, Ananthapur District. ... PETITIONER AND The Prohibition & Excise Superintendent, Ananthapur, Ananthapur 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 may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction, declaring the action of the respondent in not refunding the proportionate licence fee of Rs. 14,000/- collected during wrongful suspension from 22/02/1996 to 30/03/1996 as illegal, arbitrary, void and against principles of natural justice and direct the respondent to refund the proportionate licence fee of Rs. 14,000/- collected during wrongful suspension from 22.2.1996 to 30.3.1996. Counsel for the petitioner: Mr. Amarnath Goud Thodupunuri Counsel for the respondent: G.P., Prohibition & Excise The Court made the following Order: The petitioner, a Toddy-tappers’ Cooperative Society, has filed this writ petition seeking Mandamus to declare the action of the respondent, the Prohibition and Excise Superintendent, in not refunding the proportionate licence fee of Rs.14,000/- as illegal and arbitrary and a direction to the respondents to refund the same. 2. The petitioner-society was licenced to vend toddy in the excise year 1995-96. A case was registered against the petitioner-society in Cr.No.159/95-96 dated 03-02-1996 on the allegation that it is involved in adulteration of toddy and on the said allegation, licence was suspended by order dated 13-02-1996 passed in proceedings Rc.No.317/96/B. It is stated that subsequently the said order was revoked by order dated 01-04-1996. 3. The grievance of the petitioner-society is that as the suspension was revoked for the period from 22-02-1996 to 30-03-1996, it is entitled for refund of the licence fee of Rs.14,000/-, proportionately, for the said period. 4. Though the writ petition is of the year 2003, no counter affidavit is filed. But, at the same time, it is to be noticed that this writ petition is filed in the month of April, 2003, nearly, after six years after the cause of action arose. It is submitted that the petitioner-society had filed a representation dated 13-02-2003 and the same is not considered by the respondents. However, it is to be seen that the said representation has been made only after six years after expiry of the licence. No explanation has been given in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition explaining the abnormal delay and laches on the part of the petitioner- society in approaching this court. In that view of the matter, without going into the merits of the case, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of abnormal delay and laches. 5. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J. June 12, 2009 MRR ... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1) 2 CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP {MADHURI}