VENKA GOUD Vs. COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was a licensee of the Raipole Arrack Shop, Doulathabad Mandal, Medak District, for the Excise Year 1988-89. He failed to remit privilege fee from March to June of 1989. After issuing show-cause notice, the licence of the petitioner was cancelled by the Excise Superintendent, by an order dated 27-7-1989. Thereafter, the M.R.O., Doulathabad, conducted redisposal of the arrack shop in favour of one Satya Narayana, as per Rules 20 and 22(2) of the A.P.Excise (Lease of Right to Sell Arrack in Retail) Rules, 1988 (for short, 'the Rules'). After adjustment of all the deposits and remittances made by the petitioner, the resultant loss was worked out to Rs.37,637.33 ps. Since the said loss is recoverable from the petitioner, and he failed to pay the same, the impugned distraint order was issued by the 3rd respondent.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that as per Rule 22(2) of the Arrack Rules, if a licence was cancelled, the right to sale of the arrack shop is re-disposed subject to the same conditions and liabilities laid down in the Rules, as are applicable for the grant of initial licence. Hence, it is contended that the authorities should follow the rules that are applicable when the right to sell arrack was given on lease. It was submitted that under Rule 4 of the Arrack Rules, a notice for the grant of right to sell arrack was to be issued. A notice containing the particulars contained in sub-rule (2) shall be published in the District Gazette. But the 3rd respondent, without publication of notice in the District Gazette, re-disposed the right to sale, to Satyanarayana after the licence of the petitioner was cancelled. It is the case of the petitioner, that if the notice was published in the Gazette, the Department would have secured a better price and incurred no loss at all.

(3.) Learned Government Pleader, appearing for the respondents, submits that the notice has been published in accordance with Rule 4 of the Arrack Rules and that it was not necessary to publish the notice invariably in the District Gazette.