B VENKATESWARLU Vs. SUPERINTENDENT OF EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner and 5 others were the highest bidders in the auction held on 4-9-1992 in the Excise year 1992-93 in respect of Srikakulam Arrack Shops in Srikakulam District. They obtained licences and carried on the business. They suffered loss due to anti-arrack agitation, which took place in October, 1992 and reached its peak in November, 1992. The shops were forcibly closed down. They were, however, persuaded to continue the business on the assurance that they would be granted remissions. The Government promised to grant rentals for the months of October and November, 1992. The loss suffered by the petitioners from December, 1992 to September, 1993, was, however, not considered.

(2.) The Government issued G.O.Rt.No. 216, Revenue (Excise) Dept, dated 11-2-1994 granting remission of rentals to the extent of 20% of the rental for actual shop days for which the arrack shops were closed during the months of October and November, 1992. Accordingly it sanctioned an amount of Rs. 3,60,500/-. It is however alleged by the petitioner that they incurred a loss of Rs.15.30 crores. It was further alleged that the Government collected penal interest of Rs.7 Crores, contrary to their assurance.

(3.) When the petitioner approached the 1st respondent for the payment of the above amount, they were intimated that a letter was received from the Excise Supdt, Guntur, that Suragani Lakshmikanta Rao, one of the Contractors of Srikakulam Arrack Shops, was due certain monies concerning Piduguralla groups of arrack shops in Guntur District. Hence the amount that was payable to the petitioner and 5 others, was directed to be remitted to the Excise Supdt., Guntur. Hence the amount was not paid to the petitioner. This action of the respondent is challenged in this writ petition.