LAWS(MAD)-2011-7-213

A MANICKAM Vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER MADURAI

Decided On July 04, 2011
A. MANICKAM Appellant
V/S
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, MADURAI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner by invoking the extraordinary, writ jurisdiction of this Court, has prayed for the issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash the order, dated 30.05.2005 vide which the claim petition for the refund of Rs.1 Lakh has been ordered to be deferred, on the following grounds:

(2.) THE petitioner was granted license to run Indian made foreign liquor shop for retail liquor at the Koodakoil village, Thirumangalam Taluk, Madurai District for the period 2002-2003. As per the rules, the petitioner deposited a sum of Rs. 1 lakh as security with all other necessities. On expiry of the period of licence, i.e., on 02.10.2003, the petitioner asked for refund of the security amount by claiming that he had successfully run the Vend for the period of licence by observing the terms and conditions of the licence. On the failure of the respondent to refund the amount, the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.No.2345 of 2005 which was disposed of by this Court by issuing direction to the respondents to consider the request of the petitioner for refund the security deposit. It was made clear in the order of this Court that if there are no arrears on default on the part of petitioner in terms of the conditions of the licence, the respondent should return the security amount. In case, there are arrears due from the petitioner to the department, on account of the case of minimum take off, the petitioner is to pay the amount to the Government as per the Honourable Division Bench Judgment, as the question of minimum take off, the refund be ordered after adjusting the amount due from the petitioner towards arrears.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner challenges the impugned order, primarily on the ground that till date, the petitioner has not been issued any notice claiming compensation for the failure to achieve the target of minimum take off. In the absence of any order which it is not permissible to the respondent to withhold the security deposit.