Dismissed

Alla Venkata Krishna Reddy v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its

Telangana HC20 Oct 2010WP/19873/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed a writ petition seeking refund of proportionate excise license fees. It held that since the petitioner failed to produce a requisite lease deed for license renewal, the authorities were correct in rejecting the refund claim under Rule 6 of A.P. Excise (Grant of License) Rules, 2005, aligning with precedent. No order as to costs.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; no refund granted; no order as to costs.

Alla Venkata Krishna Reddy Vs The… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.19873 of 2010

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This writ petition is filed seeking a writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings dated 06.05.2010 issued by the 2^nd respondentCommissioner, Prohibition and Excise, Government of A.P., Hyderabad, whereunder the petitioner’s request for refund of proportionate license fee in a sum of Rs.7,94,224/- for the period from 12.08.2008 to 27.12.2008 during which the license was suspended, was rejected.

¶5

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise appearing for the respondents submits that the issue involved in this writ petition is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in Mandakini Restaurant and Bar v. Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Vijayawada^[1] .

¶6

Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that the case of the petitioner stands on a different footing to that of the petitioner in the aforesaid judgment of this Court.

¶7

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise.

¶8

The petitioner’s application for renewal of 2-B license was rejected, on the ground of non-production of lease deed executed by his landlady, and later it was renewed on production of such lease deed. As his request for refund of the proportionate license fee for the period for which the license was not renewed, was rejected, he filed the present writ petition. Though the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise submitted that the petitioner having failed to comply with the provisions of A.P. Excise (Grant of License)

¶9

Rules, 2005, is not entitled to refund of proportionate license fee, as held by this Court in the judgment referred above, the same was disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner and he contended that the case of the petitioner is different from that of the issue decided in the said judgment.

¶10

So as to consider whether the issue raised by the petitioner is covered by the judgment referred to supra, I have perused the same. It is a case where the petitioner’s application for renewal of Form-2B license was rejected by the authorities on account of his failure to produce lease deed and a learned Judge of this Court, having dealt with the matter in detail, held that an applicant seeking renewal of Form-2B license shall necessarily comply with all the conditions envisaged in Rule 6 of A.P. Excise (Grant of License) Rules, 2005, and existence of lease deed being one of the conditions so stipulated by the said rule, failure of the petitioner therein to produce such a lease deed from the owner of the premises disentitles him to the renewal of Form-2B license and hence no illegality is said to be found in the order of the authority in rejecting the application of the petitioner therein for renewal.

¶11

Since in the instant case also the petitioner failed to produce the lease deed for renewal of license and he having failed to comply with the conditions envisaged in Rule 6 of the Rules 2005, no fault can be found with the action of authorities in rejecting his request for refund of proportionate license fee for the period for which his license was suspended.

¶12

For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶13

__________________ JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA

¶14

20^th October, 2010

¶15

IBL

¶16

[1] 2008 (4) ALD 188

Alla Venkata Krishna Reddy v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Alla Venkata Krishna Reddy v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

T.v.Krishna Reddy Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Jonnalagadda Damodar Reddy Vs The Superintendent of Police

Rabin Mujumdar Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh

Bakaram Narayana Reddy, Vs Mankhal Laxmamma

Mali Hanmanth Reddy Vs Mali Venkat Reddy

S.Mahabub Bee Vs The Superintendent of Police