M L LINGARAJ Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SHORT point involved in this writ petition is whether a transferee of a licence is entitled to claim any amount deposited by the earlier licensee.

(2.) ONE h. r. mariholakar was cl-2 licensee and he had continued his business from the excise year 1990-91. However, he made an application for grant of licence for the excise year 1998-99. As per imfl rules, said mariholakar has deposited the licence fee in advance along with the application for licence. Licence was not granted for the said year. Therefore, he has not done any business in respect of the excise year 1998-99. For the subsequent year licence was granted in favour of mariholakar and the same has been transferred in favour of the present petitioner m. l. lingaraj. Present petitioner who is a transferee of a licence of mariholakar demanded the respondents to refund the amount deposited by mariholakar. The same was not considered and therefore the present petition is filed requesting this court to issue a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to refund an amount of Rs. 2,85,000/ -. Petition is contested by the respondents.

(3.) ACCORDING to the learned government pleader, the petitioner is not entitled for the relief since an amount of Rs. 2,85,000/- was deposited by mariholakar and that under Rule 11 of imfl rules, if the licence has not been granted, the amount has to be refunded in favour of the person who deposited the amount. Since the present petitioner had not deposited the amount, he cannot maintain the petition for mandamus.