(1.) The 1st petitioner herein was granted licence in Form IL-24 to sell Indian Liquor at Tenali for the Excise Year 2000-01. In pursuance thereof, though he started business in the name and style of M/s. Sri Krishna Wines, due to certain problems he was unable to continue the business and therefore he made an application dated 21-3-2001 requesting the third respondent - Prohibition and Excise Superintendent, Guntur to transfer the licence in favour of the petitioners 2 and 3 under Rule 38 of the A.P. Indian Liquor and Foreign Liquor Rules, 1970 (for short, 'the Rules'). He also paid the required fee of Rs.12,000/-. However, the 4th respondent - Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Tenali by proceedings dated 25-3-2001 informed the 1st petitioner that he is required to remit a sum of Rs.72,000/- towards licence fees but not Rs.12,000/- and accordingly directed him to pay the balance amount of Rs.60,000/- as per Rule 38(2) of the Rules. It appears that the said proceedings were issued on the basis of a clarification by the 2nd respondent - Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise dated 22-2-2001 stating that 10% of licence fees is leviable for transfer of licence. Hence, this writ petition seeking a declaration that the proceedings of the 2nd respondent dated 22-2-2001 as well as the order of the 4th respondent dated 25-3-2001 as arbitrary and illegal and for a consequential direction to transfer the licence of the 1st petitioner in favour of the petitioners 2 and 3.
(2.) In the counter-affidavit filed by the Prohibition and Excise Superintendent, Guntur, on behalf of the respondents, it is stated that the fee chargeable for grant or renewal or continuance of a licence shall be full annual licence fee and therefore the impugned proceedings directing the 1st petitioner to pay a further sum of Rs.60,000/- is in accordance with law. It is also stated that the 2nd respondent issued a clarification dated 22-2-2001 stating that 10% of the fee for transfer of licence is leviable on the annual licence fee of the shop.
(3.) I have heard the learned Counsel for both the parties and perused the material on record.