(1.) This writ petition seeks a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to grant remission in respect of rental for thr proportionate short supply of arrack in the months of Novermber and December during the Excise year 1984-85.
(2.) The facts in brief that lead to the filing of this writ petition are that the patitioner herein a'ong with other partners had taken up excise contract in respect of arrack shops in Nirmal taluk on monthly rental of Rs. 11, 11, 111-11 ps for the excise year 1984-85, Pursuantly all the formalities were also complied with and licence was obtained. The Minimum Guaranteed Quantity (MGQ) of arrack also was fixed for each month. For the month of November 42,000 bulk liters of 30 UP arrack and 30,000 of bulk litres of 50 UP arrack was fixed. Thereupon issue price was paid for entire MGQ. However, the entire MGQ for the said month was not supplied as there was a shortage of 12,050 of 30 UP arrack and 21000 bulk litres of 60 UP arrack. Likewise, for the month of December there was shortage of 19000 and 23000 respectively of 30 and 50 UP arrack. Thereafter shortfall was made good in the succeeding months. The Petitioner, however, claimed remission as he was not in a position to vend his arrack though the shortfall was made good in the succeeding month and hence to the extent of short fall proportionate remission may be granted. This was refused. Hence, the writ petition.
(3.) The contention of Sri V.Eswaraiah, the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the case is governed by a decision of Division Bench of this Court in J. Lakshmanna V. Government of A P (1) 1982 (1) A P L J 7. The rule enacted in Rule 16 of the Andhra Pradesh (Arrack Retail Sale Special conditions of Licences) Rules in ultra vires of the Act and, therefore, rental proportionately will have to be remitted. There is no reciprocity in the provisions with reference to the MGQ and, therefore, the rule is discriminatory in character. Hence, the same will have to be struck down.