A KOIL RAJ Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ASSAILING the dismissal of W. P. No. 17670 of 1998 by the learned single Judge by order dated 4. 12. 1998, the appellant has filed the above appeal.

(2.) 1. The backdrop of the case, which led to the filing of the appeal, is that the appellant was the successful bidder in respect of an arrack Shop No. 48, Kachanavillai Village for the excise year 1997-98. On payment of necessary privilege amount of Rs. 1,42,313/-, security deposit of Rs. 5,000/- and licence fee of Rs. 2,500/- on 27. 6. 1997 at the Divisional Excise Office, he was required to locate a shop for issuing necessary licence. 2. 2. The appellant proposed to locate a shop at Door no. 17/35, Main Road , Kachanavillai Village and sent the agreement copies for issuance of licence. As the proposed place was hazardous, the appellant was directed to select an alternative place and therefore, the appellant located a shop at No. 16/91, Kachanavillai Village . But, the same was also located within the prohibited distance of school and worshipping place attracting Rule 18 of the Tamil Nadu Liquor (Retail Vending) Rules, 1989 (for brevity "rules") and therefore, the appellant was directed to select another place. 2. 3. In the meanwhile, the Kachanavillai Village panchayat resolved against the proposed IMFL shop. As the appellant could not locate a suitable place for running a shop and the Panchayat also passed a resolution not to open a shop within its limits, the appellant by representation dated 29. 7. 1997 requested for refund of the deposit made by him. But the same was rejected by the impugned proceedings of the first respondent holding that there is no provision for refund of the amount under the Rules, which necessitated the appellant to move this Court for issue of writ of certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the first respondent in lr. No. 2164/pe. VI/98-8 dated 27. 10. 1998, quash the same and consequently, to direct the respondents to refund the privilege amount, security deposit and licence fee totalling Rs. 1,49,813/- with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of claim till the date of payment. 2. 4. After hearing both sides, the learned Single Judge, by order dated 4. 12. 1998 held that the appellant is not entitled to the refund of deposit made by him as per Rule 10 (3) of the Rules and in view of the agreement made by the appellant agreeing to abide the Rules of auction and accordingly, dismissed the writ petition. Hence, the appeal.

(3.) WE have given careful consideration to the submissions of both sides.