IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HUDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE 6T H DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO. 12343 of 2006 Between: Ms Raja Goud Wines, H.No. 11-2-536, 8 Incline Colony, Allur, Karimnagar District rep by its licencee Mr. B.Srinivas Goud … PETITIONER And : 1. The Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Nampally, Hyderabad 2. The Prohibition & Excise Superintendent, Karimnagar District, Godavarikhani. … 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 of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the action of the respondents in collecting the licence fee for unlicenced period i.e., from 01/07/2005 to 27/12/2005 (5 months 27 days) and not refunding the same is illegal, arbitrary, unjust and contrary to law and against principles of natural justice and to direct the respondents to refund the licence fee collected for the unlicenced period along with 18% interest and pass such other order or orders as the Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Amarnath Goud Thodupunuri Counsel for the Respondent: GP for Excise The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO. 12343 OF 2006 ORAL ORDER : The petitioner is aggrieved that the respondents have collected license fees for the period 1.7.2005 to 27.12.2005 i.e., for a duration of 5 months 27 days and have failed to refund the proportionate amount of the annual license fee, for this period. The petitioner participated at the bid and was successful in obtaining grant of an A4 license, for Shop No. 53 located in Ward No.28, Ramagundam Municipality, as per the notification in the District Gazette during the Excise Year 2005-06. The 2nd respondent by proceedings dated 2.6.2005 certified the petitioner as the highest bidder. It would appear that the Management of Singareni Collieries whose employees in large number reside in the Ramagundam Municipal area, protested and objected to the opening of wine shops in Ramagundam Municipality area as it would affect the life and economic stability of the employees. As there were protests for establishment of wine shops in Ward No.28, it would appear that the Deputy Commissioner addressed the Joint Commissioner and after obtaining administrative clearance permitted establishment of one shop in Ward No.30 instead of the notified Ward No.28. The petitioner could eventually identify a premises in Ward No.30. Consequently a license was issued on 28.12.2005 valid up to 30.6.2006. The Excise Year however commenced on 1.7.2005. Therefore, for the period from 1.7.2005 to 27.12.2005 the petitioner could not pursue the business. He however paid the license fee for the entire excise year commencing from 1.7.2005 and sought refund of the proportional license fee since not having pursued business during the period mentioned above. There being no response to his several representations, the writ petition is filed. Sri Amarnath, the learned counsel for the petitioner does not place before this court any provision in the A.P. Excise Act 1968 or in any Rules made thereunder which enable the petitioner either expressly or by any compelling inference, to deduction of a proportionate license fee, relatable for the period for which alone a licensee was disabled to pursue the business. The petitioner has bid at an auction. His bid was for the license year 2005-06 and the terms either of the notification or of the license do not specify a discernible calculus as to how the profit and loss in the business would be computed. If the petitioner was to make substantial profits for the Excise Year in question the State would not be entitled to any higher license fee nor would the petitioner be entitled to any remission if the consumers in the locality abstained from consumption of liquor. Even if the bulk of consumers for some reasons prefer another shop and were to avoid the petitioner’s shop, even so the petitioner would be liable to pay the lease amount. It is a purely commercial arena and the petitioner bid for the lease amount on a best judgment assessment of the economic potentialities. In the absence of any statutory rules enabling the petitioner immunity from paying the entire bid amount, no legal principle substrates the petitioner’s claim. A Full Bench of this court in Sri Narasimha wines and Others v Prohibition and Excise Superintendent, Medak District at Sangareddy and Others ( [1] ) held that a Writ of Mandamus cannot be issued directing the statutory authorities to act contrary to law. It was further held that a mater qua a contract would not attract the writ jurisdiction of this court as in such matters a public law element is not involved. Since the petitioner does not place before this court any statutory entitlement for the right to pay only the proportionate license fee nor a concomitant obligation of the State to collect a proportionate license fee, no public law element is involved and no relief could be granted under Art. 226 of the Constitution. On the aforesaid analysis this court discerns no merits in the writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. Dated: 06.08.2008 ----------------------- ---- Pvsn Justice G.Raghuram 1. The Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Nampally, Hyderabad 2. The Prohibition & Excise Superintendent, Karimnagar District, Godavarikhani. 3. 2 CCs to 4. 2 CD copies [1] 2001 (6) ALT 240