THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 24762 OF 2011 Dated: 05.09.2011 Between: Mahankali Malyadri ..... PETITIONER AND The Government of Andhra Pradesh and 2 others ..... RESPONDENTS The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.24762 OF 2011 O R D E R : The petitioner was granted Form-2B licence for running a bar and restaurant at Guntur in the year 2007, which has been renewed from time to time and is valid upto June, 2012. As the licenced premises was non-contiguous, 10% additional licence fee was levied by the 3rd respondent and the same was paid by the petitioner. Subsequently having made the premises contiguous by effecting necessary alterations, the petitioner requested the 2nd respondent to adjust the additional licence fees already paid towards subsequent instalment of licence fees. In pursuance thereof, the 3rd respondent by order dated 23.10.2007 ordered adjustment of Rs.1,38,000/- paid towards 10% additional licence fee for 2007-08 towards third instalment licence fee for 2007-08. Long thereafter, the impugned order dated 23.07.2011 came to be passed directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.1,84,000/- towards non-contiguity fee for the year 2007-08 together with interest at 18% till the date, within seven days stating that the Accountant General (C & RA), A.P., Hyderabad had pointed out based on the local audit report that there was no provision in the rules to adjust the additional licence fee collected towards non-contiguous consumption enclosures towards the licence fees. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed contending that the impugned demand was illegal since the same was without power and authority apart from being in violation of the principles of natural justice. Heard both parties. At the outset, it is to be noticed that the impugned order dated 23.07.2011 was passed without giving an opportunity to the petitioner to make his representation against the action proposed which was purportedly initiated on the basis of the local audit report. Admittedly, the 3rd respondent by order dated 23.10.2007 had permitted such adjustment and the impugned demand, virtually amounts to nullifying the said order of the 3rd respondent. The fundamentals of fair play require that the petitioner should be given an opportunity to make his representation against such action before the amount was sought be recovered with interest. Since no such opportunity was given to the petitioner, the Writ Petition is disposed of permitting the petitioner to submit his objections treating the impugned notice dated 23.07.2011 as a show-cause notice within four (4) weeks from today. If any such objections are submitted within the time fixed above, the respondents shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Till such time, no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner for recovery of the amounts demanded in the notice dated 23.07.2011. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. ​ ____________ G. ROHINI, J Date: 05.09.2011 Ivd