IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 17454 of 2003 Between: Mr.P. Madhusudhan Reddy, s/o Srinivasulu Reddy, IL-24 Licencee of M/s.Gowda Wines, Gollapalli (V), Gudur(M), Nellore District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Proh., & Excise Superintendent, Nellore District at Nellore. 2 The Commissioner of Proh., & Excise, Govt., of A.P., at Hyderabad. 3 The Proh., & Excise Inspector, SHO, Excise Station, Gudur, Nellore District. .....RESPONDENTS 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 to issue a writ of mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction declaring Rc.No.124/2003/A4, dt.30- 07-2003 of the ﬁrst respondent in demanding Rs.64,000/- from the petitioner on account of transfer of licence fee during excise year 1998-99, 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 as unilateral, unjust, against principles of natural justice, contrary to law and set aside the same and further suspend the operation of Rc.No.124/2003/A4, dt.30/7/2003 of the first respondent Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.AMARNATH GOUD THODUPUNURI Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR PROHIBITION & EXCISE The Court made the following Order: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.17454 of 2003 ORDER: First respondent granted IL-24 licence to M/s Gowda Wines, a proprietary concern represented by its proprietor - Sri K. Radha Krishna Reddy. The licensee is required to carry on business in accordance with the Andhra Pradesh Indian Liquor and Foreign Liquor Rules, 1970 (the Rules, for brevity). During currency of the licence period for 1998-1999, on a request made by the proprietor, the petitioner herein was taken as a partner, in eﬀect transferring licence of the proprietary concern to the partnership ﬁrm. The licence was renewed in the name of the ﬁrm for 1999-2000. While the licence was in force, on a request made, name of K. Radha Krishna Reddy was excluded by ﬁrst respondent. Again there was transfer of licence from partnership ﬁrm to proprietary concern, this time represented by the petitioner. At the time of renewal of licence for the year 2000-2001, it appears that the petitioner and K. Radha Krishna Reddy made an application to renew the licence in their name, which was accordingly accepted. Thus again there was transfer of licence from proprietary concern represented by the petitioner to the partnership ﬁrm consisting of the petitioner and K. Radha Krishna Reddy. Every time the transfer was allowed. The department of excise collected a sum of Rs.1,000/- from the licensee. It appears that during audit by the accountant general it was brought to the notice of the respondents that the transfer fee as required under Rule 38(2) of the Rules was not levied and the same was not collected from the licensee. Therefore, ﬁrst respondent issued a notice of demand/show cause notice dated 06.05.2003 for Rs.64,000/- being transfer of licence fee for 1998-1999, 1999-2000 and 2000-2001. The petitioner challenged said notice in W.P.No.11167 of 2002. This Court disposed of said writ petition on 17.06.2003 directing ﬁrst respondent to consider representation/explanation of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders. Thereafter the petitioner submitted explanation to the show cause notice issued by ﬁrst respondent. After considering the same, ﬁrst respondent again issued show cause notice dated 10.07.2003 for balance amount of Rs.45,000/-. As the petitioner failed to remit the same, the licence issued to the ﬁrm for the year 2003-2004 was suspended by the impugned order dated 30.07.2003, aggrieved by which instant writ petition is filed. A counter-aﬃdavit is ﬁled placing reliance on Rule 38(2) of the Rules and other allegations are made. This Court heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise. Learned Government Pleader placed reliance on an unreported judgment in I. Surya Prakasa Rao v. Govt. of A.P. [W.A.No.113 of 2006 dated 01.02.2006] wherein a Division Bench of this Court laid down that levy of 10% licence towards transfer fee under Rule 38(2) of the Rules is chargeable for grant of renewal or continuance of licence and that it is a condition precedent for transfer of licence. As rightly pointed out by learned Government Pleader pursuant to the objections raised by the audit department, ﬁrst respondent issued show cause notice which was initially set aside by this Court. Again after the matter was remitted, show cause notice dated 10.07.2003 was issued and after considering explanation, impugned order dated 30.07.2003 was passed in accordance with Rule 38(2) of the Rules. Action of ﬁrst respondent also derives support from the Division Bench of this Court in I. Surya Prakasa Rao (supra). The writ petition is devoid of any merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _____________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 29th October, 2008 GHN To 1 The Proh., & Excise Superintendent, Nellore District at Nellore. 2 The Commissioner of Proh., & Excise, Govt., of A.P., at Hyderabad. 3 The Proh., & Excise Inspector, SHO, Excise Station, Gudur, Nellore District. 4 2CCs to GP for Prohibition and Excise 5 2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{ }