IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO : 407 of 2002 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 10/09/2001 in WP NO : 15399 OF 2000 on the file of the High Court.) Between: K.Jangam Rao S/o.Sayanna Goud R/o.Chikkadapally Hyderabad ..... APPELLANT AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh Rep.by its Secretary Revenue (Excise-II) Department Secretariat, Hyderabad 2 The Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise Government of Andhra Pradesh Hyderabad 3 The Special Officer on Duty Revenue (Excise-II) Department, Hyderabad District .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant: SRI T.SURYA KARAN REDDY Counsel for the Respondents.: GP FOR PROHIBITION & EXCISE The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO : 407 of 2002 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy) This writ appeal is filed against the order, dated 10.9.2001 in WP No.15399 of 2000, whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant-petitioner questioning G.O.Rt.No.810 dated 30.6.2000 issued by the Government of A.P. The facts in brief for the purpose of disposal of this writ appeal are that the appellant along with his partners was the arrack contractor for the excise years 1981-82 to 1982-83 for distribution of arrack within twin cities on a monthly rental of Rs.60,01,000/- and annual rental of Rs.7.20 Crores for 1981-82 and on a monthly rental of Rs.57,55,000/- and annual rental of Rs.6.90 Crores for 1982-83. According to the rules in force, the Minimum Guaranteed Quota (MGQ) was fixed at 87,73,870 liters and 80,36,660 liters of arrack for the excise years 1981-82 and 1982-83 respectively. It is an admitted fact that the appellant failed to lift MGQ to the extent of 24,53,056 Lts and 21,66,734 Lts for the years 1981-82 and 1982-83 respectively. The appellant claimed to have made representations dated 15.3.1982 and 4.9.1982 requesting for reduction of MGQ during the contract period. The said request having been rejected by respondent No.2, the appellant approached the Government by way of revision, which was rejected by G.O.Rt.No.1405, dated 23.8.1999. Assailing the said order, the petitioner filed W.P.No.21999 of 1999, which was disposed of by this Court by order dated 17.12.1999 with a direction to the Government to pass fresh orders after holding enquiry. After remand, the Government rejected the request of the appellant vide G.O.Rt.No.810, dated 30.6.2000, which is impugned in the writ petition. In the writ petition, the respondents filed a detailed counter- affidavit strongly resisting the claim of the appellant. The learned Single Judge after a thorough consideration of the rival contentions and the material on record, dismissed the writ petition. At the hearing, Sri T. Surya Karan Reddy, learned Counsel for the appellant fairly submitted while he is not seriously questioning reasoning contained in the order of the learned Single Judge, he however submitted that the Government is not justified in refusing to extend the same relief as was given to the other similarly situated persons. The learned Counsel also submitted that the finding of respondent No.2 that the appellant approached the department after a lapse of eight years after expiry of the excise contract period was factually incorrect. At the hearing, he has taken adjournment to produce the copies of representations in order to show that they were filed in the year 1982 and 1983 itself. Today, the learned Counsel produced copies of representations dated 15.3.1982 and 4.2.1983 addressed to respondent No.2. A perusal of representation, dated 15.3.1982 prima facie shows that it contains the official seal of respondent No.2. It is no doubt true that a citizen is not entitled to claim any relief on the basis of negative equality, law is equally well settled that the State while dealing with its citizens cannot indulge invidious discrimination. If the appellant is able to show that he is situated similarly to the persons in whose favour reduction of MGQ was granted even in the absence of any rule to that effect, we do not find any justification for the Government to take a different stand in case of the petitioner. In that view of the matter, we remit the case to respondent No.1 for fresh consideration on the basis of the representation said to have been made by the appellant on 15.3.1982 to respondent No.2. The respondents shall consider the request of the appellant for reduction of MGQ afresh if the latter is able to show that he has made his representation on 15.3.1982 as claimed by him before us and pass appropriate orders, within a period of six months from today, without reference to the earlier rejections impugned in the writ petition. It is needless to observe that till such time as the representation is disposed of, the respondents shall not take coercive steps for recovery of the amounts due from the appellant. Writ Appeal is accordingly disposed of. ________________________ Justice T. Meena Kumari _____________________________ Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy Dated: 21.1.2009 Nn. THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO : 407 of 2002 (Judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy) 21.1.2009