: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (LDG.) NO.559 OF 2009 Ashok Mohan Vernekar ....Petitioner V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ....Respondents Mr.A.L. Patki for the Petitioner. Mr.Bharat Mehta, A.G.P. for the Respondents. CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATED : 25TH MARCH, 2009. P.C. : 1. By an order dated 21.3.2009, the parties were put to notice that the matter may be disposed of finally at the admission stage. 2. Accordingly rule. By consent the rule is made returnable forthwith and heard finally. 3. The matter is covered by a judgment of the learned single Judge of this Court in the case of Jyoti Partab v. Collector, Mumbai, 2004(1) Mh.L.J., 955. Paragraphs 20 and 21 of the judgment read as under :- "20. It was also sought to be : 2 : contended on behalf of the respondents that the petitions suffer from laches. It is to be noted that no tax or fee can be imposed or levied or collected in contravention of the statutory provisions and any such tax or fee collected, has to be refunded to the parties from whom the same is illegally collected. The law in that regard is well settled by umpteen number of decisions of this Court and the Apex Court. Being so, mere delay by itself cannot be a ground to reject the petitions when on merits, the petitioners have disclosed and established a very good case. The contentions regarding the point of laches raised by the respondents are therefore rejected. 21. It is therefore to be held that the provisions of the Privilege Fees Rules are not attracted in case of transposition of the names of the legal heirs of the deceased licence holder in the liquor licence and therefore, in such cases the legal heirs cannot be made liable to pay privilege fees for such transposition of their names in the liquor licence. Both the petitions therefore succeed. The demand for payments of the privilege fee amounting to Rs.1,50,000/- and Rs.32,000/- in Writ Petition No.1860 of 2003 and the demand for the payment of Rs.48,400/- in Writ Petition No.2402 of 2000 are hereby quashed and set aside and the respondents are directed to refund the said amount to the respective petitioners within a period of four weeks from today, failing which the respondents shall be liable to pay interest at the rate of 6% per annum thereon, from the date of the expiry of the said period till payment of the actual amount. Rule is made absolute accordingly." 4. In the present case also, the licence had been issued in the name of the Petitioner’s father. : 3 : Thus the privileges fees rules are not attracted in the case of transposition of the Petitioner’s name as heir of his deceased father, who was holder of the liquor licence. 5. In the circumstances, the Writ Petition is made absolute in terms of prayers (a) and (c).