N SULOCHANA Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is asking for a writ of mandamus, or any other appropriate writ or direction, directing the respondents to refund the sum of Rs. 75,934.00 paid by her in pursuance of a surety bond executed by her. It is necessary to state a few facts, to appreciate the points raised herein.

(2.) For the excise year 1958-59, the petitioners husband, along with some other Nallagutta Sendhi Group of shops. The Sendhi Group comprised, among other a village called Sikh village. This village is said to have been withdrawn later from the group. Be that as it may, at the end of the excise year, a demand in a sum of Rupees 75,928/- was made by the Government upon the licensees.

(3.) In September, 1962, auctions were held for the excise year 1962-63. The petitioners husband, along with some other persons, happened to be the highest bidder in respect of musheerabad Sendhi Group of shops; but, the issue of licence was stopped by the Board of Revenue on the ground that the petitioners husband was a defaulter for the amount referred to in the preceding paragraph. However, after further correspondence, it was directed by the Government that, in case a surely bond is furnished for the said arrears relating to Nallagutta Sendhi group of shops, licence for the Musheerabad group may be issued for that year. It is in pursuance of those orders that the petitioner executed the surety bond on 26-9-1962. It would be appropriate to set out the surety bond in its entirety, since the argument of Mr. P. L. N. Sarma, the learned counsel for the petitioners, turns upon the language of this document. It reads:-