K RAMALAKSHMAYYA Vs. SUPERINTENDENT OF EXCISE GUNTUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition, the petitioner claims that he is entitled to the refund of the amount paid in advance under rule 19 .of the Andhra Pradesh Excise (Lease of Right to Sell Liquor in Retail) Rules (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') on the ground that he had lifted the entire minimum guaranteed quantity of liquor as provided under the licence given to him and that the same cannot be withheld or adjusted towards any rental allegedly due from him.

(2.) The petitioner, who was a licensee for the Vinukonda group of arrack shops for the excise year 1980-81, was required to make a deposit of Rs 30,050 under rule 19 of the Rules Admittedly the petitioner had lifted the entire minimum guaranteed quantity of 1,20,000 liters of liquor allotted to the shops The grievance of the petitioner is that although he had lifted the entire quantity, the excise authorities with held the refund of the said amount of deposit on the ground that rental due for the period from 2nd January, 1981 to 9th January, 1981 was not paid, during which his licence stood suspended for non-payment. Questioning the right of the excise authorities to demand and recover the rental for the period during which the licence remained suspended, the petitioner has filed a separate writ petition out of which W A No 422 of 1981, arises, which has been disposed of by a separate judgment holding that the excise autho rides are justified in suspending the licence and the writ petitioner was liable to pay the rental The only question, therefore, that remains to be considered in this writ petition is whether as contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the excise authorities are bound to refund the said amount because he had lifted the entire minimum guaranteed quantity of liquor for which purpose the amount was paid, even though arrears of rental are due and recoverable from the petitioner

(3.) The petitioner based his claim primarily on the ground that no arrears of rental are due from him for the excise year 1980-81 in respect of the Vinukonda group of shops In view of the conclusion we have reached in W.A. No. 422 of 1981, that basis no longer subsists. Even so, Mr. Balakrishna Murthy, learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the amount of Rs. 30,050 paid by him as advance under rule 19 of the Rules is liable to be refunded inasmuch as he had lifted the entire minimum guaranteed quantity of 1,20,000 litres of liquor allotted for the said group of shops. In support of this contention he placed reliance upon rules 16, 18 and 19 of the Andhra Pradesh Excise (Lease of Right to Sell Liquor in Retail) Rules, 1969, which read as follows: