Allowed¶35

The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Secretary to Government, v. Super and Super Recreation Club

Madras HC24 Nov 2025/3424/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Refund of licence fee; Rule 24-A Tamil Nadu Liquor (Licence and Permit) Rules, 1981; surrender of licence as pre-condition for refund; non-transaction of business to subjective satisfaction of licensing authority; Covid-19 lock down 17.03.2020 to 03.09.2020; licensee holding valid licence and stocks during ban period; writ appeal by State of Tamil Nadu Prohibition and Excise Department; Clause 15 Letters Patent intra-court appeal; Madras High Court; WA No. 3424 of 2025; writ order in W.P.No.13590 of 2021 set aside; Super and Super Recreation Club.

What did the court decide?

Writ order dated 25.07.2023 in W.P.Nos.13590 of 2021 set aside; writ appeal allowed; consequently connected miscellaneous petitions, if any, closed; no order as to costs. ¶35

The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Secretary to Government, Vs Super and Super Recreation Club — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ order dated 25.07.2023 in W.P.Nos.13590 of 2021 set aside; writ appeal allowed; consequently connected miscellaneous petitions, if any, closed; no order as to costs.

¶35

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents were entitled to refund of licence fee under Rule 24-A of the Tamil Nadu Liquor (Licence and Permit) Rules, 1981 for the Covid-19 lock down period, when they admittedly held valid licences and possessed stock during the ban period and had not surrendered their licences along with the refund applications.

¶23

Court's answer

Under Rule 24-A of the Rules, surrender of the licence along with the application for refund is a pre-condition contemplated by the Rules.

¶31

Ratio / Principle

Where a licensee, during the ban period, holds a valid licence and is in possession of stocks, mere non-transaction of business will not attract Rule 24-A for refund of licence fee.

¶35

Key takeaways

Refund under Rule 24-A requires two mandatory ingredients: (i) surrender of the granted licence along with the application, and (ii) establishment by the licensee that he did not transact any business during the relevant period, to the subjective satisfaction of the licensing authority concerned.ratio¶35
The respondents had neither surrendered their licences nor proved non-transaction beyond the existence of a general ban period applicable to all traders; hence the writ order dated 25.07.2023 in W.P.No.13590 of 2021 runs counter to the spirit of Rule 24-A and is set aside, and the writ appeal is allowed.ratio¶35

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (Division Bench of S.M. Subramaniam and Mohammed Shaffiq JJ., order authored by S.M. Subramaniam J.), 24-11-2025, WA No. 3424 of 2025: State of Tamil Nadu's intra-court appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Single Judge's order dated 25.07.2023 in W.P.No.13590 of 2021, by which the respondents/licensees (a recreation club) had been granted refund of licence fee under Rule 24-A of the Tamil Nadu Liquor (Licence and Permit) Rules, 1981 for the Covid-19 lock down period (17.03.2020 to 03.09.2020). Held: Rule 24-A mandates that a licensee claiming refund apply to the licensing authority along with the licence itself, i.e., surrender of the licence is a pre-condition, and the licensee must further establish non-transaction of business to the subjective satisfaction of the authority. A licensee who admittedly held a valid licence and possessed stocks during the ban period cannot claim refund merely because a general lock down applicable to all traders prevented transactions. The writ order was contrary to the spirit of Rule 24-A and was set aside; writ appeal allowed; connected miscellaneous petitions closed; no costs.

¶1

2025:MHC:2769

¶2

WA No. 3424 of 2025

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶4

DATED: 24-11-2025

¶5

CORAM

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE S. M. SUBRAMANIAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ

¶7

WA No. 3424 of 2025

¶8

The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Secretary to Government, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai -600 009.

¶9

The Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Government of Tamil Nadu, Ezhilagam, Kamarajar Salai, Chepauk, Chennai -600 005.

¶10

Appellant(s)

¶11

¶12

Super and Super Recreation Club, Represented by its Secretary Z.Dilip Rogger, No.17, Thiruvalluvar Nagar, 5th Avenue, Besant Nagar, Chennai -600 090.

¶13

Respondent(s)

¶14

PRAYER

¶15

To set aside the Order dated 25.07.2023, made in W.P.No.13590 of 2021 and allow the above Writ Appeal and thus render justice.

¶16

For Appellant(s): Mr. P.Kumaresan , Additional Advocate General Asst.By Mr.S.Ravichandran Additional Government Pleader

¶17

For Respondent(s): Mr.A.Suresh

¶18

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶19

WA No. 3424 of 2025

¶20

ORDER (Order of the Court was made by S.M.Subramaniam J.)

¶21

Under assail is the writ order dated 25.07.2023 passed in W.P. Nos.13590 of 2021.

¶22

State preferred the present intra-court appeal under Clause 15 of Letters Patent challenging the writ order impugned mainly relying on Rule 24 A of the Tamil Nadu Liquor (Licence and Permit) Rules, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as Rules). Respondents/writ petitioners filed applications under Rule 24-A of the Rules seeking refund of licence fee on the ground that Government of Tamil Nadu announced lock down during Covid-19 pandemic in the year 2020 from 17.03.2020 till 03.09.2020. During the said period, the respondents had not transacted any business under the licence. Thus, respondents claimed refund of licence fee.

¶23

Learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State would mainly contend that refund of licence fee is permissible only if the licensee has not transacted any business under the licence and submit an application along with licence for grant of refund. In the present case, lock down announcement was made in general to all the traders except for sale of essential commodities and Covid-19 pandemic being extraordinary situation and the whole country faced lock down, refund of licence fee would not arise.

¶24

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶25

WA No. 3424 of 2025

¶26

Learned counsel for the respondents would oppose by stating that question of surrendering licence may not arise in the present case, since Government announced lock down and fact regarding non-transaction cannot be denied. Therefore, the writ order is in consonance with Rule 24-A of the Rules. Thus the appeals are to be rejected.

¶27

This Court has considered the rival submissions made between the

¶28

parties to the lis. Rule 24-A of the Rules is extracted hereunder:

¶29

'24-A. Refund of licence fee in certain cases.

¶30

A licensee, who has not transacted any business under the licence, shall apply to the licensing authority for refund of the licence fee along with the licence granted to him. On receipt of the application, the licensing authority may refund the licence fee, if he is satisfied that the licensee has not transacted any business under the licence granted to him.'

¶31

The above rule in unequivocal terms reiterates that licensee, not transacted any business under licence, shall apply to the licensing authority for refund of licence fee along with licence granted to him. Therefore, surrender of licence along with application is a pre-condition contemplated under the Rules.

¶32

In the present case, respondents, during ban period, were admittedly holding licence and possessing stocks. When a licensee is in possession of

¶33

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶34

WA No. 3424 of 2025

¶35

stocks and holding a valid licence, then non-transaction would not attract Rule 24-A of said Rules for refund of licence fee. That apart, application received is to be considered by the licensing authority and such authority may refund licence fee, if he is subjectively satisfied that the licensee has not transacted any business. Therefore, along with application, licence granted must be surrendered and secondly, the licensee has to establish that he had not transacted any business during the relevant period. Non-transaction is to be established to the subjective satisfaction of the authority concerned. These two ingredients contemplated under Rule 24-A of the Rules are mandatory for grant of refund of licence fee under Rule 24-A. Since in the present case, the licence had not been surrendered nor there is any proof to establish that licensees had not transacted any business except by stating that there was a ban period, which is applicable to all the traders, this Court is of the considered view that the writ order impugned is running counter to the spirit of Rule 24-A of the Rules. Thus the writ order dated 25.07.2023 made in W.P. Nos.13590 of 2021 is set aside and the writ appeal is allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions, if any, are closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶36

(S.M.SUBRAMANIAM J.)(MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ J.) 24-11-2025

¶37

gd Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes Neutral Citation:Yes/No

¶38

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶39

WA No. 3424 of 2025

¶40

¶41