IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.15616 of 2007 Between: K. Karanlal ... PETITIONER a n d Government of A.P. rep. by its Principal Secretary, Excise Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others … RESPONDENTS ORDER: This writ petition has been filed by Sri K. Karanlal assailing the action of the third respondent i.e., the Prohibition and Excise Superintendent, Miryalguda in demanding the payment of Rs.39,500/- (Rupees thirty nine thousand and five hundred only) as dues for the excise year 2002-03. 2. The petitioner was the licencee of IL-24 for the Excise year 2002-2003. The license fee came to be enhanced from Rs.4,50,000/- to Rs.8,25,000/- and 1/3rd of the license fee was collected from the petitioner. For the rest of the 2/3rd license fee, the petitioner furnished Bank guarantee. The petitioner along with other licencees filed W.P.No.24403 of 2002 questioning the action of the respondents in collecting the enhanced fee of Rs.8,25,000/- instead of Rs.4,50,000/- for the excise year 2002-2003. The said writ petition ended in dismissal. Thereafter the petitioner paid total licence fee of Rs.8,25,000/- for the excise year 2002-2003. 3. The third respondent demanded Rs.39,500/- towards penal interest on the belated payment vide letter dated Cr.No.818/2003/C2, dated 15-07-2003. The petitioner submitted representation to the third respondent disputing his liability to pay the penal interest. The third respondent issued another letter dated 27-02-2007 vide proceedings No.D1/2007 making a demand of Rs.39,500/-. The said letter is assailed in this writ petition. 4. Rule nisi came to be issued on 24-07-2007. Interim stay came to be granted on the even date vide WPMP No.19758 of 2007. 5. The respondents entered appearance and filed W.V.M.P.No.3455 of 2007 along with counter with a prayer to vacate the interim order dated 24-07-2007 passed in WPMP.No.19758 of 2007. When the vacate stay petition came up for consideration with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties the writ petition is taken up for final disposal. 6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise appearing for the respondents. 7. The learned Government Pleader submits that the petitioner questioned the action of the third respondent in collecting the penal interest of Rs.39,500/- by filing W.P.No.17870 of 2003 and said writ petition ended in dismissal suspending the action of the third respondent in making a demand of penal interest of Rs.39,500/-. This factual aspect has not been disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner. When the action of the third respondent in demanding the penal interest has been sustained in their earlier round of litigation it is impermissible for the writ petitioner to assailed same demand by filing the separate writ petition. 8. Hence, the writ petition is devoid of merits and it may be dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________________ B. SESHASAYANA REDDY, J April 07, 2010. PN THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.15616 of 2007 April 07, 2010