Dismissed

M/s.Sree Balaji Wines, N.P.Kunta, Licence No.220/2006-2008, v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its

Telangana HC8 Dec 2011WP/28239/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition challenged the rejection of the petitioner's claim for a refund of licence fees paid for a retail liquor shop. The court held that the petitioner, who had bid at a specific notified location but failed to complete formalities to obtain permission there, could not claim a refund when later granted permission at a different location by Government order.

What did the court decide?

Claim for refund of Rs.2,21,310/- towards licence fee dismissed; no order as to costs.

M/s.Sree Balaji Wines, N.P.Kunta, Licence… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY

¶2

Writ Petition No.28239 of 2007

¶3

Date: December 8, 2011

¶4

Between:

¶5

M/s. Sree Balaji Wines, NP Kunta

¶6

… Petitioner

¶7

And

¶8

The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary, Prohibition & Excise Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and others

¶9

… Respondents

¶10

Order:

¶11

This writ petition is filed questioning the order dated 07.09.2007 passed in proceedings Cr.No.1768/2007/CPE/M5, by the 2^nd respondent, Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise, Hyderabad. By the said order, the claim of the petitioner for refund of an amount of Rs.2,21,310/- towards the licence fee paid by him to run retail liquor shop for the excise year 2006-08 is rejected.

¶12

Grant of licence for sale of liquor in retail is governed by the Rules, viz. A.P. Excise (Lease of Right of selling by Shop and Conditions of Licence) Rules, 2005, framed under the A.P. Excise Act, 1968. Respondents have notified A-4 shop at Gazette serial No.220, Kalasamudram village of Kadiri Mandal in District Gazette Notification No.28/2006 by fixing the upset price at Rs.7,72,420/- and conducted auction on 03.06.2006. The said shop was not disposed of in the first round of auction and therefore further auction was held on 29.06.2006. In the auction held on 29.06.2006, petitioner was the highest bidder and he has quoted Rs.7,73,000/against the upset price of Rs.7,72,420/-. Though he is the highest bidder; in spite of issuance of notice for complying the formalities, he has not taken the licence to run the shop as per the notice and made a request to

¶13

grant licence by shifting the place from Kalasamudram village to N.P. Kunta Mandal headquarters of N.P. Kunta Mandal. Based on his request, reports were called for. Subsequently, in view of the orders of the Government, A-4 licence is issued to the petitioner on 18.01.2007 to run the A-4 shop at N.P. Kunta.

¶14

It is the case of the petitioner that he made a request for grant of licence by shifting the licence from Kalasamudram village to N.P. Kunta Mandal headquarters and as there was delay on the part of the respondents in granting licence, he did not conduct business in Kalasamudram village from the date of auction till the date of grant of licence, i.e. from 29.06.2006 to 18.01.2007.

¶15

It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as much as the petitioner is deprived of business for the aforesaid period for no fault of his, he is entitle to an amount of Rs.2,21,310/-.

¶16

In this case, it is to be noticed that the A-4 shop in question was not disposed of in the first round of auction and therefore further auction was held on 29.06.2006. In the auction held on 29.06.2006 with regard to A-4 shop at Kalasamudram village o f Kadiri Mandal, petitioner was the highest bidder. Although he has offered his bid, he did not turn up by producing necessary documents to

¶17

obtain licence in spite of notice from the respondents. In the auction notice, respondents have not notified the place “N.P.Kunta’ for the purpose of running A-4 shop. Merely because the request of the petitioner for shifting the shop in question from Kalasamudram village to N.P. Kunta is acceded to subsequently by the Government, petitioner is not entitle to refund of the licence fee as claimed by him. Knowing well that location of A-4 is notified as ‘Kalasamudram village’, he has offered his bid, but thereafter, did not turn up to obtain licence. As the petitioner was permitted to shift the A-4 shop only on his request, he is not entitled to refund of the licence fee and nothing prevented him from obtaining licence and conducting business in Kalasamudram village after his bid was accepted.

¶18

For the aforesaid reasons, I see no reason to interfere with the impugned order in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶19

(R. SUBHASH REDDY, J)

¶20

December 8, 2011 MRR

M/s.Sree Balaji Wines, N.P.Kunta, Licence No.220/2006-2008, v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s.Sree Balaji Wines, N.P.Kunta, Licence No.220/2006-2008, 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr.K.Rama Devi, Vs The State of A.P.

Komari Venkateswhwarlu, Vs Moole Dasharatham

Smt. a. Surya Kumari, Vs The State of A.P.

Dr.Sudhir R.Nayak, Vs The Commissioner of Endowments

G. Lakshman, Vs The District Collector (Civil Supplies)

Holy Mary Institute of Tech.Andscience. Vs Secty. All India Council for TECH.EDUAND2