IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JUNE, TWO THOUSAND NINE ONLY WRIT PETITION No.2671 of 2006 Between: B.Venkateswara Rao. … Petitioners And The Superintendent, Prohibition & Excise Department, Machilipatnam, Krishna District and another. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri V.V.Anil Kumar. Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Prohibition & Excise. This Court made the following: ORDER:- This Writ Petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.1 in not refunding the proportionate license fee from 7-9-2002 to 31-3- 2003 to the petitioner, as illegal. Heard Sri V.V.Anil Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise. The petitioner entered into a lease agreement in respect of premises bearing Door No.74-1-10, M.G.Road, Patamata, Vijayawada, with M/s.Chalasani Constructions Pvt. Ltd., for a period of three years from 4-7-2001 to 30-6-2004 for running a Bar and Restaurant. License was granted in favour of the petitioner by the State Government on 9-8-2002 for running a Bar and Restaurant. The petitioner paid first installment of license fee of Rs.4,43,333/- and furnished a bank guarantee for the equal sum towards second installment. After the petitioner ran the Bar and Restaurant for about 15 days, the vendor of the immovable approached this Court, whereupon the petitioner’s license was suspended by this Court, vide order dated 27-8-2002 in WPMP No.20201 of 2002 in Writ Petition No.16093 of 2002. Following the said order of this Court, respondent No.1 eventually cancelled the license of the petitioner on 5-11-2002, which was served on the petitioner on 7-11-2002. The petitioner thereafter approached the respondents for refund of the proportionate license fee for the period during which he was prevented from carrying on business on account of suspension of his license by this Court and subsequent cancellation by respondent No.1. As his request was not acceded to, the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition. At the hearing, Sri V.V.Anil Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that as the petitioner was prevented by an event, which was beyond his control, from running the Bar and Restaurant, the respondents are bound to refund the license fee. He placed reliance on the judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court in Naga Chengal Reddy Vs. Prohibition & Excise Superintendent, Cuddapah - 2003(2) ALD 509 - in support of his submission. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise, opposing this contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the license came to be suspended initially by this Court and cancelled subsequently by the department in view of the said order and internal dispute over the premises in which the Bar and Restaurant was located between the landlord and the tenants, and that therefore, the department is not liable to refund the license fee. I have carefully considered the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. The A.P. Excise Act, 1968 provides for refund of license fee in two contingencies, viz., under Section 20 when the District Magistrate requires that any shop, in which any intoxicant is sold, shall be closed for such period as he thinks necessary for preservation of the peace; and under Section 32 when the license is withdrawn. In no other event the licensee is entitled to refund of license fee. The judgment of the learned single Judge (supra) relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner does not help the petitioner because that was a case where on account of the changed Government policy, which denied renewal to the licensee, this Court held that as the Government itself was responsible for preventing the licensee from carrying on the business, the licensee is entitled to refund of the license fee for the period during which he was denied renewal of license. In the instant case, admittedly, the license was cancelled on account of the order passed by this Court in a dispute between the landlord and the tenant. Therefore, in my considered view, the petitioner is not entitled to refund of the license fee. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. ------------------------------------ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date:24-6-2009 MNR