IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No: 16951 of 2002 Between: K. Mara Reddy S/o Nagi Reddy, R/o Kottalapalli Village, Sri Avadhutha Kasinayana Mandal, Cuddapah District. ... PETITIONER AND The Prohibition and Excise Inspector Badvel, Cuddapah 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 or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the Respondent in directing the petitioner to pay Rs. 52,720-65Ps. on the ground that the petitioner had run arrack shop at Amagampalli Village in the Excise year 1988-89 without there being any due from the petitioner, without any notice, without any demand for nearly 14 years without any limitation without furnishing any details as illegal, unjust, arbitrary, and against the principles of natural justice and against Article 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently set a side the impugned order Ref. No. nil, dated nil issued by the respondent. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.L.J.VEERA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent: GP FOR PROHIBITION & EXCISE The Court made the following: ORDER: Petitioner questions the notice issued by the Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Badvel, Kadapa District demanding to pay a sum of Rs.52,750.65 ps. while availing the benefit of the order of the Government in G.O.Ms.No.320 (Revenue Ex.II) Department dated 10.06.2002 for waiver of interest on the principal amount provided he pays the entire due amount on or before 31.08.2002. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent has not furnished any details of the said amount and that he had taken the Arrack shop at Amagampalli Village in the year 1988 only for a period of one month and the said shop was re-auctioned; therefore issuing the impugned notice after a period of 14 years is illegal and arbitrary. 3. Counter has been filed stating that the petitioner became the highest bidder in the auction of the arrack shop at Amagampalli village for the year 1988-89 and he did business for some time and failed to continue the business, therefore, the petitioner is liable to pay resultant loss of Rs.1,57,007.55 ps. and after adjusting certain deposits and credits standing in favour of the petitioner, the final demand was arrived at Rs.54,720.65 ps. The demand notice issued to the petitioner was acknowledged on 17.08.1990. It is further stated that pursuant to the demand notice the petitioner remitted a sum of Rs.1,500/- on 10.08.1998 and Rs.500/- on 31.03.1999 vide challan Nos.131 and 937 respectively at Sub-Treasury, Badvel. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner has no knowledge about the aforesaid dues. It is stated that the impugned notice is not a demand notice but it is a notice to avail the benefit of the aforesaid G.O. for waiver of interest. 4. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that if the petitioner does not want to avail the benefit of the Government order, the respondent cannot be precluded from collecting the amounts with interest. However, this Court granted interim stay staying the collection of the said amount. Even now, if the petitioner wants to avail the benefit of the said GO, he is permitted to do so by paying the entire amount within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The respondent may receive the same without insisting upon payment of interest on the said amount. If the petitioner fails to do so, it is open for the respondent to recover the principal amount along with interest. The writ petition is disposed of with the above observations. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ V. ESWARAIAH, J March 31, 2008 DSK