ARRACK SHOP LICENSEE OF R T C ROAD TENABAND IRUVARAM CHAVATAPALLY AND MAPAKSHI ARRACK SHOPS IN CHITTOOR TOWN Vs. EXCISE SUPERINTENDENT CHITTOOR DIST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners were licensed to vend arrack in Chittoor town under A P Excise (Right to Sell Arrack in Retail) Rules, (Arrack Retail Sales Rules for short), for excise year 1988-89. In his proceeding R C No. A2/92 46/89 dated 15-5-1989, the District Collector Chittoor requested the licensees to close down all arrack, today and IMFC shops in Chittoor town and adjoining villages within 8 KMs from 5 AM on 16-5-1989 to 5 AM on 18-5-1989 in view of the tense situation arising from Gangamma Jatara festival. Petitioners closed down the shops for those two days and could not transact any business. They lost business and earnings therefrom for those two days. They submit that they are entitled to remission of proportionate amount of privilege fee for those days: but the 1st respondent issued circular R C No. A2/1227/89 dated 18-8-1989 directing the excise officials to collect privilege fee in full without allowing any remission. Petitioners submit that such collections are expropriatory. They submit that in almost similar circumstances this court had ordered remission in Judgment dated 12-4-1989 in WP No. 696/89 pursuant to which the Government issued G O Ms No. 394 dated 19-4-1989 allowing the remission of privilege fee to licensees in coastal districts of the State, where due to disturbances in December, 1988, stocks of liquors were destroyed and the arrack shops were closed down for three to ten days from 26-12-1988. Petitioners also refer to a judgment do 5-9-1989 of this Court in W P No. 1227/89 wherein this Court directed implementation of G O Ms No 374/89 in the case of the petitioners therein as well. Counsel submits that refusal to grant such remission in this case is illegal and discriminatory.

(2.) Respondents submit that the petitioners are bound by Rule 25 of the Arrack Retail Sales Rules and the counterpart agreement which they had executed not to claim any compensation on account of closure of shops except to the extent of proportionate licence fee in the event the licence is withdrawn or the shop is ordered to be closed down under the provisions of the Excise Act otherwise than by cancellation or suspension. Therefore, petitioners are entitled to claim remission only of licence fee and not of privilege fee. Respondents assert that this court in the common judgment dated 12-4-1989 in W P No 16486/88, 241/89, 635/89 and 696/89 etc, directed remission only of licence fee and not privilege fee. G O Ms No 374/89 dated 19-4-1989 which was issued in the context of destruction of stocks of liquor due to disturbances during the curfew period in the coastal Districts of the Slate during December 1988 is not applicable to the situation on hand. It is also submitted that the Judgment of a Division Bench in K Krishna Murthy Vs. The Excise Superintendent (1) (1989 (2) APLJ 166) fully covers the facts of this case.

(3.) The controversy involved in all the 57 writ petitions is substantially the same except in respect of the area of operation of the licensees and the period of enforced closure of shops.