The High Court of Telangana dismissed a writ petition challenging the stipulation of a non-refundable application fee for a liquor license. The court declined to examine the constitutional challenge as the petitioner had not sought a refund and deposited the fee without protest.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DILIP B. BHOSALE
AND
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V. BHATT
WRIT PETITION No. 30758 OF 2015
07-10-2015
Between:
Thotakuri Shivaiah
… Petitioner
And
The State of Telangana, rep., by its Principal Secretary, Revenue (Excise) Department, Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad and others
… Respondents
HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DILIP B. BHOSALE
AND
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V. BHATT
WRIT PETITION No. 30758 OF 2015
PC: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice S.V. Bhatt)
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
The petitioner, in the instant writ petition, makes the following prayer:
“For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue writ or direction preferably Writ of Mandamus declaring the stipulation of furnishing non-refundable Application Fee for an amount of Rs.50,000/- along with the application for grant of licence to sell Indian Made Foreign Liquor & Foreign Liquor by shop vide G.O.Ms.No.163 Revenue (Excise-II) Department Dated 11/09/2015 and condition No.3 in Gazettee Notification dated 14-9-2015 issued by the Respondent No.4 as illegal, arbitrary, violative of Articles 14, 19 & 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same and pass such other or further orders as this Hon’ble court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”
It is not in dispute that the petitioner made application on 21-09-2015 and participated in the selection process and in the drawal of lots, lost. It is also not in dispute that along with the application, he deposited non-refundable application fee. When he deposited the non-refundable application fee, he could have deposited the same either under protest or without prejudice to his rights and contentions raised in the writ petition. In the writ petition, the petitioner has not even prayed for refund of the amount.
In view thereof, we are not inclined to examine the challenge raised in the writ petition.
Hence, the writ petition is dismissed.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, also stand disposed of.
DILIP B. BHOSALE, ACJ
S.V. BHATT, J
07-10-2015
ks
1 issue framed by the court
Whether to examine the constitutional validity of a non-refundable application fee stipulation.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Thotakuri Shivaiah
The State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue
Dilip B. Bhosale
S.V. Bhatt
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
