(1.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. In fact, this Court by its order dated 9. 10. 2006 had put the parties on notice as issue involved in the present Petition has been already adjudicated in a judgment reported in 2000 (2) All. M. R. 4, this Petition would be heard finally at the stage of admission.
(2.) By this Petition the petitioner is praying for issuance of a writ holding and declaring that the demand and recovery of rs. 1,75,000/- by the respondent for transfer of CL III licence standing in the name of his father to the name of the petitioner is illegal arbitrary and ultra vires the powers under Rule 5 of the Bombay Prohibition (Privilege Fees) Rules, 1954. The petitioner has also prayed for directing to refund the amount of Rs. 1,75,000/- alongwith interest @ 24% p. a. from the date of deposit till its realisation.
(3.) The facts in the present Petition can broadly be classified as under:-The father of the petitioner was holder of CL III liquor licence at Raja Bazar, aurangabad District. Father of the petitioner, i. e. the holder of the licence, died on 6. 2. 2002 at Aurangabad. The petitioner thereafter applied for transposition of his name in the aforesaid CL III liquor licence as the Petitioner was the sole legal representative of the deceased Gokullal S/o bandulal Jaiswal. The third Respondent informed the petitioner that the Petitioner would be required to pay an amount of Rs. 1,75,000/- for transposition of his name in place of the name of his deceased father. The aforesaid communication is dated 7. 3. 2003. Upon receipt of the said communication, the petitioner remonstrated the demand of the respondents for deposit of the aforesaid amount, however, it appears that ultimately the petitioner deposited the aforesaid amount and the name of the petitioner came to be transposed in the place of name of his deceased father.