THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.31901 of 2010 Dated 07th December, 2011 Between: Chodagam Vijay Kumar …Petitioner And The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Excise Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad, rep.by its Principal Secretary and others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri O.Manohar Reddy Counsel for respondents: AGP for Prohibition & Excise The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is ﬁled for a mandamus to declare the action of respondent Nos.2 to 4 in insisting on payment of licence fee for the entire excise year 2010-11, instead of limiting the same from 01.10.2010 to 30.06.2011, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner sought for a consequential direction to the respondents not to insist on licence fee from 01.07.2010 to 30.09.2010. One M.Venkata Ranga Rao was holding a licence in Form-2B for running a bar and restaurant. His licence which was initially granted for the excise year 2006-07 was renewed by proceedings, dated 20.09.2010. The said licence was transferred in favour of the petitioner on 24.06.2010. The petitioner made an application for renewal of licence. As the petitioner failed to enclose a copy of the lease deed in respect of the premises concerned, the said application was not disposed of. The petitioner thereafter ﬁled an application for shifting his premises. The petitioner’s application was rejected on the ground that an A4 licensee is carrying on the business near the place to which he sought for shifting of the premises. Questioning the said order, the petitioner ﬁled W.P.No.22435 of 2010. This Court by order, dated 06.10.2010, in W.P.M.P.No.28601 of 2010, directed the respondents to consider the case for renewal of Form-2B licence and also for shifting the shop to any new place and in pursuance of the said order, respondent No.2 has passed order in C.R.No.11934/2010/CPE/M2, dated 29.10.2010, whereby licence was ordered to be renewed, subject to the condition that the petitioner locates the bar at any other suitable place. Thereafter, the licence was granted on 04.12.2010. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite the fact that the licence was granted only on 04.12.2010, the respondents are insisting on payment of licence fee for the entire excise period commencing from 01.07.2010. According to him, but for the earlier rejection of his request for shifting, he would have located the bar and restaurant much earlier and that the respondents cannot be allowed to take advantage of their own default. The respondents ﬁled a detailed counter aﬃdavit denying the above-mentioned pleas of the petitioner. They have averred that as the petitioner failed to furnish a copy of the lease deed, his earlier request for renewal could not be accepted, that the second application for renewal by permitting shifting of the location was rejected on the ground that it was situated in close proximity to an A4 shop and that in pursuance of the interim direction granted by this Court on 06.10.2010, licence was renewed on the condition of the petitioner locating the bar at any other new place by order, dated 29.10.2010. It is further stated that the petitioner produced lease deed on 25.11.2010, and within a few days thereafter, the licence was granted on 04.12.2010. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Prohibition & Excise on the basis of the above facts pleaded that the delay in renewal is not attributable to the respondents and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to any concession or remission in the licence fee. At the hearing, Sri O.Manohar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, placed reliance on Rule 10(3)(b) of the A.P.Excise (Grant of Licence of Selling By Bar and Conditions of Licence) Rules, 2005 and submitted that where the licence is granted during the middle of the excise year, the licensee is permitted to pay only a part of the licence fee depending upon the period during which such permission is granted. He, therefore, submitted that the respondents ought to have given beneﬁt of this provision to the petitioner. The learned Assistant Government Pleader submitted and in my opinion rightly that the said provision governs grant of fresh licences and not renewals. In legal parlance, renewal connotes continuance of previous licence. It, therefore, necessarily follows that once the renewal is made, it is deemed that such renewal takes eﬀect from the date of expiry of original licence period. Except in cases where the Court is convinced that on account of patent illegality or arbitrariness on the part of the authority concerned, renewal was not made, the licensee will not be entitled to any remission or concession in licence fee. Even on the admitted facts of the case, it cannot be said that there is such negligence on the part of the respondents resulting in delayed grant of renewal of the licence. In the absence of any provision providing for such remission or concession in case of renewals unlike in case of grant of fresh licences, I do not ﬁnd any legal basis for the petitioner to claim concession or waiver of the renewal fee for the part of the excise year. For the above-mentioned reasons, the writ petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, interim order, dated 20.12.2010, is vacated and W.P.M.P.No.40554 of 2010 and W.V.M.P.No.488 of 2011 are disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 07th December, 2011 VGB