IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 10061 of 2005 Between: M.Shivaraja Goud, S/o.Mohan Goud, R/o.Fareed pet, Machareddy Mandal, Nizamabad Dist. .... PETITIONER AND 1. The Commissioner of Excise, Govt. of Andhra Pradesh, J.N.Road, Hyderabad. 2. The Excise Superintendent, Nizamabad, Nizamabad Dist. 3. Sub-Divisional Prohibition Excise Officer, Kamareddy, Nizamabad Dist. ....RESPONDENTS 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 of Mandamus or any other appropriate order or direction in the nature of a writ declaring the proceedings of the 3rd respondent in form No.1 dated 19-4-2005, as highly illegal, arbitrary, unjust and as in violation of the principles of natural justice, and violative of the order dated 25-9-1997 in W.P.No.16664 of 1989 and to set aside the same and to pass such other orders as are necessary in the interests of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.J.V.PRASAD Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR PROHIBITION & EXCISE The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.10061 OF 2005 ORDER: Petitioner filed instant writ petition challenging notice, dated 19.04.2005 issued by third respondent under Andhra Pradesh Revenue Recovery Act, 1864 demanding a sum of Rs.3,68,535/- being excise arrears for the year 1989-1990. The petitioner and one Kola Balaraj Goud constituted a firm, which was engaged in arrack contract business for 1989-1990 in respect of four shops at Fareedpet, Isaipet, Palwancha Nos.1 and 2 of Machareddy Mandal in Nizamabad District. The period of lease/licence was upto 30.09.1990. The petitioner alleges that due to warnings given by naxalites, arrack business had to be closed from 03.11.1989 at Palwancha Nos.1 and 2 and from 02.11.1999 at Fareedpet and Isaipet. The firm, therefore, made representation dated 18.11.1989, seeking exemption from paying of privilege fee and issue price from 03.11.1989 and 02.11.1989 till restoration of normalcy, in vain. Therefore, petitioner filed W.P.No.16664 of 1989. The same was disposed of giving liberty to petitioner to approach the Superintendent of Excise for passing appropriate orders. When a demand was made, petitioner did not pay the amount and therefore, impugned notice was issued, which is challenged in the writ petition. Third respondent filed counter affidavit on behalf of respondents, inter alia, stating that the petitioner is not entitled for any resumption or compensation and that petitioner is bound to pay excise arrears as well as privilege fee. During the course of making submission, learned Assistant Government Pleader has brought to the notice of this Court (a reference is made in the counter affidavit also), an order, dated 14.02.2003 in W.P.No.12165 of 2000. The said writ petition was filed by Kola Balaraj Goud, partner of petitioner, challenging the demand made by respondents 2 and 3. The writ petition was dismissed placing reliance on Shankerlal v State of Punjab[1], Assistant Excise Commissioner v Issac Peter [2] and State of Orissa v Narain Prashad [3] . In view of the same, this writ petition is misconceived and is liable to be dismissed. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ______________ (V.V.S.RAO,J) 29.10.2008. pln [1] AIR 1976 SC 2045 [2] (1994) 4 SCC 104 [3] (1996) 5 SCC 740