N MAHENDER RAO Vs. GOVERNMENT OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed seeking to quash the proceedings of the second respondent in Cr.No.1771/2005/CPE/ G4, dated 4.1.2006 and consequently, to direct the respondents to release the lease amount of Rs.4,10,000/- with interest at 18% per annum from the due date till the date of payment for the non-business period and with all consequential benefits.

(2.) The petitioner was the successful auction purchaser in the auction conducted on 30.6.2005, for the sale of Indian liquor and foreign liquor by a retail outlet in respect of the outlet notified in Ward No.3 of Karimnagar Municipal Corporation on yearly lease amount of Rs.19,18,000/-. It is stated that though the retail outlet was notified in Ward No.3, he had submitted an application seeking permission to shift the retail outlet from Ward No.3 to Ward No.10 at House bearing No.3-3-142/1, Karimnagar Municipality. The said application of the petitioner was enquired into and the Prohibition and Excise Superintendent, Karimnagar, vide his letter dated 2.7.2005 recommended to the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise to consider his request. Accordingly, the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise vide his proceedings dated 9.9.2005 permitted the shifting of the retail outlet from the notified place of Ward No.3 to Ward No. 10 at the aforesaid premises. Thereafter, licence has been granted to the petitioner on 12.9.2005 for the lease period from 1.7.2005 to 30.6.2006.

(3.) Now, the grievance of the petitioner is that though the lease period is from 1.7.2005 to 30.6.2006, admittedly, licence was issued to him only on 12.9.2005 and therefore, he is not under legal obligation to pay the proportionate lease amount from 1.7.2005 to 11.9.2005 i.e., prior to the grant of licence. It is stated that he made a representation to the second respondent Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Hyderabad, for remission of the lease amount for the aforesaid non-business period, but, the same was rejected by the impugned order dated 4.1.2006. The petitioner questions the said order and consequently, seeks the relief to refund the proportionate lease amount for the aforesaid non-business period.