IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.16436 of 2005 Between: E. M. Dandapani S/o A.J. Mainkya Mudaliar Chintalapattada Village, Nagari Mandal, Chittoor District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of A.P., rep by Secretary Revenue (Excise-III) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad 2 The Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Nampally, Hyderabad 3 The Prohibition & Excise Superintendent, Chittoor, Chittoor district .....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, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not refunding the proportionate rental and licence fee for 6 months and 9 days for the excise year 1998-99 though the petitioner’s revision was allowed on 14-12-2000 by the 1st respondent as illegal, unjust arbitrary and dilatory and against the statutory provisions, and consequently direct the respondents to refund the proportionate rental and licence fee for 6 months and 9 days to the petitioner for the excise year 1998-99. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.L.J.VEERA REDDY 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.16436 of 2005 ORDER: The petitioner obtained IL 24 licence for the year 1998- 1999 under the Andhra Pradesh Indian Liquor and Foreign Liquor Rules, 1970 (the Rules, for brevity). When petitioner’s premises was inspected on 20.08.1998, it is found 200 Ml of loose vorion whisky in quarter bottle and 180 Ml brandy bottle containing 90 Ml liquor, which is in violation of the Rules and conditions of licence. Therefore, a case was registered and subsequently after completing all formalities third respondent cancelled the licence by proceedings dated 24.12.1998. The petitioner then ﬁled an appeal before the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, second respondent herein. The same was dismissed. The petitioner then preferred a revision before Government, ﬁrst respondent herein, under Section 64 of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968. The Government taking a lenient view, allowed the revision vide their orders in G.O.Rt.No.1864, dated 14.12.2000. The petitioner then approached second respondent for refund of licence fee for the period from 23.09.1998 to 31.03.1999 and the same was rejected. Therefore, instant writ petition is filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when the petitioner did not run IL 24 shop from 23.09.1998, when the licence was suspended, which was subsequently restored, he is entitled to seek refund of licence fee. Per contra, learned Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise submits that the Government took a lenient view and giving a beneﬁt of doubt allowed the revision. The Government, however, did not think it proper to order refund of the fee. Therefore, the writ petition would not lie. She also relied on a decision of a Full Bench of this Court in Sri Narsimha Wines v Prohibition and Excise[1]. The fact of the matter is not in dispute. The petitioner’s licence was cancelled for alleged violation of conditions of license. There is no denial or dispute that a person having IL 24 licence is entitled to sell Indian liquor and Foreign liquor in sealed or capsuled bottles but he shall not allow consumption on the licensed premises (See Rule 23(xiii) of the Rules). Further general condition No.1 of license in IL 24 Form confers a privilege on the licensee to sell all kinds of Indian liquor/Foreign liquor and beer which can be sold for removal from the licenced premises in scaled receptacles in quantities not exceeding 6 Quarts in respect of Indian liquor and Foreign liquor and 12 bottles in respect of beer in one transaction to an unlicensed person. The licence does not permit consumption of liquor on the licensed premises. Therefore, in this aspect of the matter the Government did not record any ﬁnding in favour of petitioner. As a fact it was found that when inspection was conducted the licensee was not present in the premises. When a beneﬁt of doubt is given by revisional authority and a request for refund was refused, the scope of judicial review is very limited. An unreported judgment of this Court in G. Yadagiri v Prohibition and Excise Superintendent in W.P.No.25366 of 2001 dated 07.02.2003 has been brought to the notice of this Court, wherein the following observations were made. Further, in Viswanatha Ravi Kumar Vs. Government of A.P.[2] my learned brother Hon’ble Sri Justice Goda Raghuram dealing with the validity of various Government orders passed in exercise of powers under Section 64 of the Act, invalidated the same inter alia on the ground that the power of revision was exercised with long delay. When the Government benevolently exercised its power under Section 64 of the Act, after long lapse of time after the cancellation order is passed, the same does not give rise to a cause of action to the petitioner to claim refund or readjustment of the license fee qua the licensing year 1998-99. There is no such provision in the Act or Rules and the same is not denied. It is also not denied that while ﬁling a revision before the Government the petitioner did not speciﬁcally pray refund or adjustment of the license fee. Therefore, in this writ petition, he cannot seek any relief which he did not seek before the revisional authority or the appellate authority. Unless mala fide exercise of power is attributed and demonstrated, no writ would lie. In that view of the matter, the writ petition must be held to be misconceived. Therefore, for the above reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. ______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 30th October, 2008 PLN To 1 The Government of A.P., rep by Secretary Revenue (Excise-III) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad 2 The Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Nampally, Hyderabad 3 The Prohibition & Excise Superintendent, Chittoor, Chittoor district 4 Two CCs to Government Pleader for Prohibition & Excise, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad. 5 Two C.D. Copies. [1] 2001 (6) ALT 240 (F.B.) [2] 2002 (2) ALD 29