HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA W.P.No.12132 of 2001 Dated 19th day of July, 2006 Between: M/s.Tirumala Wines, Kavali .. Petitioner And The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. By its Principal Secretary, Revenue (Ex.) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and two others. .. Respondents O R D E R: This writ petition is filed for issuance of a writ of mandamus declaring the proceedings in Rc.No.19991/2000/CPE/G2, dated 29.12.2000 issued by the Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise rejecting the request of the petitioner for refund of licence fee for the period from 18.5.1998 to 31.3.1999, as illegal, arbitrary and unreasonable, and consequently to direct the respondents to refund the proportionate licence fee for the above period during which, the petitioner’s shop remained closed. The brief facts are that the petitioner has a valid licence issued in FL-24. On account of certain irregularities, the licence was suspended by the Superintendent of Excise, Nellore on 11.5.1998, and the same was served on the petitioner on 18.5.1998. Subsequently, the licence was cancelled by the competent authority on 13.11.1998. Against the said order, the petitioner preferred appeals and the first appeal was rejected on 20.2.1999 and the second appeal was dismissed on 18.6.1999. Aggrieved by these orders, the petitioner preferred revision petition before the Government, and according to him, it was allowed on 13.9.2000, his licence was restored on 21.9.2000 and he paid licence fee up to 31.3.1999, but as he did not carry on any business for the period from 18.5.1998 to 31.3.1999, he is entitled to refund of the licence fee. Accordingly, when a representation was made, it was rejected by the 2nd respondent i.e. the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise. Hence, this writ petition is filed. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Central Excise. The learned Government Pleader for Excise has filed a detailed counter. The facts are not in dispute. It is also not disputed that the Government allowed the revision petition filed by the petitioner, but this Court is of the view that the order passed by the government is not on merits, but purely based on a sympathetic view. The relevant paragraph is extracted hereunder: “After careful examination of the matter, taking a lenient view, the Government hereby set aside the orders of the Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise, Hyderabad in Cr.No.928/DPE/99/B2, dated 18.6.1999 and allow the revision petition. The Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Hyderabad, shall take necessary action accordingly.” This clearly shows that the Government took a lenient view for obvious reasons, which does not entitle the petitioner to the refund of the licence fee. In fact, in the counter filed by the Government Pleader, it is clearly mentioned what the word “lenient view” is. According to the Government, the words “benefit of doubt” and “lenient view” were used in various orders. The following is the considered view of the Government: i) People who were consuming liquor were not apprehended. ii) Seating arrangements like tables, chairs, empty/half filled glasses with liquor were not found. iii) Liquor might have been consumed outside the business premises i.e. either on the road or public place and on seeing the Excise Department officers, they have fled leaving behind empty glasses/half empty bottles, etc. There is some evidence to prove that loose sales of liquor took place but that evidence was not clinching and conclusive. Hence, benefit of doubt is given to the licencee. For the above reasons, this Court is of the view that the orders passed by the Government in the revision are not to the effect that the petitioner is not guilty of the charge leveled against him, and hence, the petitioner is not entitled to the refund of licence fee. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. _______________ 19.07.2006 bcj