THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD WRIT APPEAL NO.1250 OF 2003 Dated: 30.11.2010 Between: 1. Prl. Secretary to Government ..Appellant Vs. T. Lakshmana Rao .. Respondent THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD WRIT APPEAL NO.1250 OF 2003 ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice A. Gopal Reddy) This writ appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent by the State and its officials challenging the order of the learned single Judge in W.P.No.3631 of 2001, dated 2.3.2001, whereunder the appellants were directed either to refund the proportionate licence fee for a period of 9 months and 20 days i.e., from 10.6.1999 to 31.3.2000, during which period the licence to sell Indian made Foreign Liquor was suspended, or to adjust the same in future rentals. Heard the learned Government Pleader for Prohibition & Excise and the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent. It is not in dispute that I.L.24 licence to sell Indian made Foreign Liquor was granted to the respondent-writ petitioner and the same was renewed for the excise year 1999-2000 on 30.3.1999. The licence of the writ petitioner was suspended by the Prohibition and Excise Superintendent, West Godavari, Eluru, on 10.6.1999 for indulging in loose sales, which constitutes an offence under item XIII of Rule 23 of A.P.I.L. & F.L. Rules, 1970. On that, the writ petitioner filed a revision petition before the Government questioning the order of cancellation of licence and the Government by G.O.Rt.No.1517 Revenue (Excise.3) Department, dated 20.10.2000 set aside the order of cancellation dated 3.8.1999 and in pursuance of the same, the Prohibition & Excise Superintendent, Eluru revoked his orders of cancellation by his proceedings dated 25.10.2000. Hence, the respondent-writ petitioner filed the present writ petition seeking to issue a mandamus to the appellants to refund the proportionate licence fee for a period of 9 months and 20 days i.e., from 10.6.1999 to 31.3.2000, during which period he was not allowed to do his business. The learned single Judge disposed of the writ petition directing the appellants herein either to refund the proportionate licence fee or to adjust them in future rentals. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is relevant to note that this Court in similar cases viz., Sri Narasimha Wines and others Vs. Prohibition and Excise Superintendent, Medak District, at Sangareddy and others[1] and in unreported judgment in W.P.No.15904 of 1994 between M/s. S.L.V. Wines represented by its Proprietor S. Venkataiah, S/o Venkatanna Vs. State of A.P., rep., by Principal Secretary, Excise (Revenue) & Others, held that the licencee was not entitled to any remission of the licence fee paid by him during which period his licence stands cancelled or suspended and that remission is envisaged only when the licence is withdrawn or the shop is ordered to be closed by a competent authority, otherwise than by cancellation of suspension of licence. In view of the aforestated judgments of this Court, we have no hesitation to hold that the respondent-writ petitioner is not entitled to any remission of the licence fee, during which period, he was not permitted to run his business due to suspension or cancellation of his licence. Accordingly, the writ appeal is allowed setting aside the order of the learned single Judge. Consequently, the writ petition stands dismissed. No order as to costs. _______________________ Justice A. Gopal Reddy _______________________ Justice P. Durga Prasad Date: 30.11.2010 Nn THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD WRIT APPEAL NO.1250 OF 2003 (Order delivered by the Hon’ble Sri Justice A. Gopal Reddy) Dated: 30.11.2010 [1] 2001(6) ALT 240 (FB)