STATE OF A.P. REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, EXCISE DEPARTMENT, HYDERABAD AND ANOTHER Vs. BALUSU PICHAIAH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There was a dispute between the writ-petitioners and the appellant regarding the payment of the prilvilege-fee for the period 26th Dec. 1988 to 15th Jan. 1989, during the excise year 1988-89. The writ-petitioner had been trying to get remission of privilege-fee on account of disturbed conditions in the area where his shop is located. However, the excise-authorities did not grant remission. Thereafter, the writ-petitioner approached the Government for grant of remission of privilege-fee in the meanwhile, the excise-authorities have been insisting upon payment of the privilege-fee for the aforesaid period. In order to avoid payment of the privilege-fee during the pendency of the matter before the Government, the writ-petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 516 of 1989. During the pendency of the said writ-petition, there was an interim order passed by this Court not to cancel the licence of the writ-petitioner’s shop. Ultimately, Writ Petition 516/1989 was dismissed by this Court by order dated 12-4-89. After the dismissal of the said writ-petition, the writ-petitioner paid the privilege fee for the aforesaid period. However, when the writ-petitioner applied for refund of the security deposit and other dues, the authorities stated that they would refund the same only after the writ-petitioner paid the interest for the delayed payment of the privilege-fee. Reliance, to claim interest, is placed upon the provisions of Rule 20 (2) of the Andhra Pradesh Excise (Lease of Right to Sell Liquor in Retail) Rules 1988, read with the Andhra Pradesh Excise (Levy of Interest on Government Dues) Rules 1982.

(2.) It is clear from Rule 20 (2) of the said Rules that the licensee is liable to pay interest if he delays payment of any of the dues under the Excise Law. As per the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Excise (Levy of Interest on Government Dues) Rules 1982, the rate of interest to be charged is 18 per cent. Thus, for the period the writ-petitioner caused the delay in payment of the privilege-fee, he is liable to pay interest at the rate of 18 per cent. Merely because Writ Petition 516 of 1989 was filed by the writ-petitioner and this Court granted stay of cancellation of his licence earlier, does not give any benefit to the writ-petitioner so as to exempt him from paying interest in respect of the delayed payment of the privilege-fee under the aforesaid Rules. However, while allowing the present Writ Petition No. 14736 of 1989, the learned single Judge observed that the interim order of stay gave protection to the writ-petitioner in payment of interest for the delayed payment of the privilege-fee. With respect to the learned single Judge, we do not think that such a result will follow merely because of the filing of the earlier writ petition by the writ-petitioner and passing of the stay of the order cancelling the licence of the writ-petitioner.

(3.) In the result, the impugned order passed by the learned single Judge on 8 11-1989 in Writ Petition 14736 of 1989 is set aside, the writ-appeal is allowed, and Writ Petition 14736 of 1989 is dismissed.