IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.Y.SOMAYAJULU WRIT PETITION NO : 90 of 2003 Between: S. Ashok Kumar S/o Late Mallaiah R/o H.No. 2-52, Dargah, Hussain Rai Durgh Village, Sherilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Prohibition & Excise Superintendent, Hyderabad, Ranga Reddy District. 2 The Prohibition & Excise Inspector, SHO Excise, Hyderabad, Ranga Reddy District. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 an order more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in taking coercive steps for the recovery of the alleged arrears of rental pertaining to hte excise year 1988-89 in respect of Arrack shop of Maharajpet Village, Sherilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District in pursuant to the impugned letter No. 1/2002- 03/Chevella dated 24-8-2002 on the file of 2nd Respondents, as illegal, unlawful and contrary to principles of natural justice, arbitrary and against the provisions of A.P. Revenue Recovery Act, 1864 and Limitation Act and consequently set-aside the letter No. 1/2002-03/Chevella dated 24-8-2002 issued by the 2nd Respondent and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.M.DAMODAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR PROHIBITION & EXCISE The Court made the following : O R D E R As the petitioner fell in arrears of excise dues to the Government for the excise year 1988-89 in respect of the arrack shop of Maharajpet Village to a tune of Rs.66,100/- and as he paid only Rs.8,000/- in discharge of those arrears, proceedings for recovery of the balance amount due were initiated by taking recourse to the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act, and so, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 24.08.2002 asking him to pay the balance amount of Rs.58,100/- due from him on or before 31.08.2002, otherwise the principal amount and interest will be recovered from him under the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act. Questioning the said notice, petitioner filed this writ petition. 2. At the time of admission of the writ petition, a learned Judge by the order dated 08.01.2003 in WPMP No.126 of 2003 granted interim stay of the collection. When the respondents filed WVMP No.2118 of 2003 for vacation of the stay, a learned Judge by directing the petitioner to deposit half of the demanded amount within four weeks from that date, made the interim stay granted earlier absolute on 30.07.2003. Subsequently, on 22.08.2007 the writ petition was disposed of by a learned Judge on the basis of the representation made that the petitioner already paid the claim, and so, the matter is settled between the parties. Thereafter, respondents filed Review WPMP No.36898 of 2007 stating that the petitioner by making a false representation that he paid the entire amount, got the writ petition closed, though in fact he did not pay any amount and though there is no settlement. The said Rev. WPMP was allowed on 31.01.2008 and the petition was restored to file. 3. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that inasmuch as the period of limitation for recovery of dues is three years from the date on which the amount fell due and since by the notice impugned notice is dated 24.08.2002 in respect of the arrears for the year 1988-89, it is easy to say that the claim is barred by time, and so, the respondents cannot recover the amount. He relied on N.A.RADHA V/s. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [1] in support of his contention that the amounts barred by limitation cannot be recovered under the provisions of the A.P. Revenue Recovery Act, 1864. 4. Heard the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Excise. 5. Apart from the question whether the Limitation Act applies to proceedings impugned or not, I am unable to agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the period of limitation for recovery of arrears due to the Excise Department, which is a wing of the Government, is three years from the date of due, because Article 112 of the Limitation Act lays down that limitation for filing of any suit, except a suit before the Supreme Court in the exercise of its original jurisdiction by or on behalf of the Central Government or any State Government, including the Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir, is thirty years from the date when limitation would begun to run and under this Act, in a like suit by a proper person. So even assuming that the provisions of Limitation Act would apply, as the period of limitation is thirty years, but not three years, the contention that inasmuch as the claim is barred by time, the respondents cannot recover the amounts from the petitioner has no force, because the respondents have a right to recover the amount due from the petitioner even in respect of the arrears for the period 1988-89 in the year 2002 also. 6. The other contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that though the petitioner was directed to pay half of the amount demanded, he had in fact paid more than half of the amount, and so, the petitioner may be granted some instalments to pay the amounts due to the respondents. I find no ground to grant any time for payment of the amount due, because the petitioner had the benefit of stay for more than five years, so even assuming that he paid some amount extra than half of the amount ordered to be paid as per the interim order, it is not a ground for granting instalments to the petitioner because he did not do any service to the respondents. In fact, the petitioner who should consider himself lucky, as the Court by taking a lenient view granted stay by directing half of the amount due to be deposited, which is admittedly due from him for nearly two decades, cannot be granted any further time for payment. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed with costs. ------------------------------------ JUSTICE C.Y.SOMAYAJULU 29TH FEBRUARY, 2008 PGS To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.Y.SOMAYAJULU W.P.NO.90 OF 2003 29th FEBRUARY, 2008 [1] 2000(2) ALD 560