HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY W.P.No.2919, 3501 & 3503 of 2010 Date : 9-12-2011 Between: Jakkam Komaranjan Rao and others .. Petitioners And Government of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Excise Department, Hyderabad and others .. Respondents Counsel for petitioner : Sri C.A.R. Seshagiri Rao Counsel for respondents : Assistant Government Pleader for Prohibition & Excise The court made the following: COMMON ORDER: Since these three Writ Petitions raise common issues of fact and law, they are being heard and disposed of together. The petitioners are A-4 licensees, authorized to sell Indian Made Foreign Liquor (IMLF) and Foreign Liquor (FL), in retail. Ordinarily, the Excise Year commences from 1st of July. However, in the present case, it so happened that on account of ﬁling of W.P.No.12595/2008 by a third party and granting of an interim order therein by this Court, the licences could not be granted to the petitioners from 1-7-2008. After the said interim order of stay was vacated, licences were issued to the petitioners on the respective dates on which they entered into counter-part agreements, with effect from 1-7-2008. The petitioners paid the licence fee upto the ﬁfth instalment and almost at the end of the second year of the licence period, when the sixth instalment fell due, they ﬁled the present Writ Petitions seeking remission of the licence fee from 1-7-2008, till they were issued licences. This claim of the petitioners is stiﬄy resisted by the respondents by ﬁling counter-aﬃdavits wherein it is stated that it is on account of the reasons beyond the control of the respondents that the licences could not be granted on 1-7-2008 and that the petitioners have willingly entered into counter-part agreements in Form A6 on 10-7-2008 without any protest and started paying licence fee in instalments. It is further averred that it is only when the sixth instalment fell due, that they have started making claim for remission. The respondents have pleaded that there is no provision in the A.P. Excise Act, 1968 or the Rules made thereunder for remission of proportionate licence fee on account of delay in granting of licence. At the hearing, Sri C.A.R. Seshagiri Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, placed reliance on the Judgment of this Court in Kallam Subba Reddy Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh[1] in support of his submission that when there is no fault on the part of the licencees, the respondents are bound to refund the licence fee for the period during which the business could not be run. I have carefully gone through the said Judgment in Kallam Subba Reddy (1- supra) and I am of the view that the same does not come to the aid the petitioners. In that case, the excise licences were suspended and on realizing that the suspension was wholly unwarranted, the same were revoked by the competent authority. When the licencees have sought for remission of the licence fee for the period of suspension, the same was rejected. In the said factual background, this Court held that when licences were suspended due to the fault of the Department, the licencees cannot be penalized. In my opinion, the said decision turned on its own facts. Unlike in that case, in the present cases, no fault is attributed to the respondents for failure in granting the licences with effect from 1-7-2008. It is only on account of the interim order granted by this Court in a Writ Petition, that the respondents were disabled from granting the licences from date of commencement of the Excise Year i.e., 1-7-2008. Far from claiming remission, the petitioners have entered into counter-part agreements without any demur. In Sri Narsimha Wines Vs Prohibition and Excise Superintendent, Medak District at Sangareddy[2], the licencees have taken part in auction knowing well that the licences could not be issued with eﬀect from 1-5-2000 for a period of twelve months and subsequently made a claim for remission of the licence fee on the ground that the licences were not granted for the full period of twelve months. Dealing with such a fact-situation, the Full Bench of this Court held that since the petitioners took part in the auction knowing fully well that having regard to the fact that the notiﬁcation was issued on 1-5-2000 and the lease cannot be granted for a period of twelve months, they cannot seek remission or refund of licence fee. The Full Bench further held that dealing in liquor trade is not a fundamental right and that the issue governed by a contract would not attract the writ jurisdiction of this Court as no public law element is involved in such contracts. The Full Bench declined to strike down the rule which envisaged payment of full licence fee by holding that such a rule is neither unjust nor arbitrary. The cases on hand fall in all fours of the Judgment of the Full Bench in Sri Narsimha Wines (2-supra). For the above mentioned reasons, the Writ Petitions fail and the same are accordingly dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petitions, interim orders dated 18-2-2010 are vacated and WPMP Nos.3840, 4571 and 4573 of 2010 and WVMP Nos.2181, 2180 and 2176 of 2011, ﬁled in the respective Writ Petitions are disposed of as infructuous. ________________________ Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy Date : 9-12-2011 AM [1] 2000(1) ALT 64=2000(1) L.S. 13 [2] 2001(6) ALT 240 (FB)