K SHIVA GOUD Vs. GOVERMENT OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Issue involved and the points that arise for consideration in all these writ petitions is same, as such all are being decided by a common order.

(2.) The factual backdrop of these cases relevant for the purpose of present proceedings may be stated thus: Petitioners are all excise contractors who have participated in the auction to sell arrack in retail in respect of the shops notified in Nizamabad District and they being the highest bidders, necessary licences were granted under the Andhra Pradesh Excise (Arrack Retail Sale Special Conditions of Licences) Rules 1969. After obtaining licences to sell arrack, petitioners have started business but due to extremists threats they were forced to close down their business premises and have written about surrendering of their licences to the authorities due to the extremist activities they were unable to do business and the authorities failed to provide any protection for the sale of arrack. In view of the same, the licences were liable to be cancelled and on such cancellation the respondents are at liberty to notify the said shop and conduct public auction. But they have not conducted such auction due to the fear of extremists. But after a decade of the said surrender of licences the authorities issued the Distraint Order calling upon the petitioners to pay the amount determined towards their liability for not lifting the Minimum Guarantee Quota (MGQ) and the resultant loss to the State. Assailing the correctness of the same present writ petitions are filed.

(3.) The Sub Divisional (Prohibition and Excise) Officer, on behalf of the respondents filed a counter stating that petitioners who have participated in the auction for excise year 1989-1990 and having obtained the licences to lease arrack shops on highest bid offered by them to lift MGQ of arrack, failed to lift the same. The State suffered loss for the amounts as mentioned.