MAHATI WINES Vs. REVENUE DEPARTMENT HYDERABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the event of permission being granted for shifting of IL-24 shop from one licensed premises to other, what is the licence fee to be collected? This question of some seemingly importance that falls for consideration in these writ petitions. As the question arises in both the writ petitions, both are being disposed of by this common order.

(2.) The petitioner in W.P.No.17837 of 2002 was initially granted a licence in Form IL-24 under A.P.Indian Liquor and Foreign Liquor Rules, 1970 ('the Rules') for running a wine shop at Eepurupalem village during the year 1998-99. The petitioner in W.P.No.20258 of 2002 was granted such a licence in the same village for the same year. As there was agitation in the said village, the third respondent, on an application made by the petitioners, permitted shifting of their IL-24 shops to other places. The petitioner in W.P.No.17837 of 2002 was permitted to shift the shop to East Gangavaram village and the petitioner in W.P.No.20258 of 2002 was permitted to shift the shop to P.Dornala village in Prakasam District.

(3.) The licence is granted for a period of one year as per Rule 24 of the Rules. A licensee is required to take renewal under Rule 26-A of the Rules by applying one month in advance of expiry of the licence. The petitioners' obtained licence by paying the required slab rate of licence fee at Rs.4,50,000/-. It appears, for the year 2002-03 in East Gangavaram village as well as P.Dornala village, the Government and the Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise permitted an additional shop each. For the new licensees, the licence fee levied was Rs.3,00,000/- because the population of the villages was less than 10,000. Having come to know this, the petitioners filed these writ petitions seeking a declaration that the action of the respondents in fixing the licence fee at Rs.4,50,000/- for the excise year 2002-03 is illegal, discriminatory and un-reasonable.