APHC010274492024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3330] MONDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No. 13679/2024 BETWEEN: 1. B VIJAY BHASKAR, S/o. NARASIMHA RAO, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, LICENSEE OF M/s. PARTHA RESTAURANT AND BAR, TIRUPATI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REVENUE (EXCISE-II) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF PROHIBITION AND EXCISE, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF PROHIBITION AND EXCISE, TIRUPATI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 4. THE DISTRICT PROHIBITION AND EXCISE SUPERINTENDENT, CHITTOOR, CHITTOOR DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue Writ, or order or direction more particularly one in the Writ of Mandamus to declaring the action of the respondents in not returning/refunding the excess licence renewal fee of Rs.47,94,520/- to the petitioner collected by the respondents for renewal of Form-2B licence for the year 2016-17 during the period no business was conducted by the petitioner inspite of letter addressed by the 3rd respondent dated 18.01.2024 is as illegal, arbitrary violative of Rule 10 of Andhra Pradesh Eicise (Grant of License of Selling by Bar and Conditions of License)Rules, 2005 apart from violation of Articles 14, 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to refund the renewal of fee Rs.47,94,520/- excessively 2 collected to the petitioner forthwith duly considering the representation of the petitioner dated 17.01.2024 and as well the letter dt.18.01.2024 addressed by the 3rd respondent and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. RAVI KUMAR PONAKAMPALLI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR PROHIBITION EXCISE The Court made the following: 3 ORDER: The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief/s: …to issue Writ, or order or direction more particularly one in the Writ of Mandamus to declaring the action of the respondents in not returning/refunding the excess licence renewal fee of Rs.47,94,520/- to the petitioner collected by the respondents for renewal of Form-2B licence for the year 2016-17 during the period no business was conducted by the petitioner inspite of letter addressed by the 3rd respondent dated 18.01.2024 is as illegal, arbitrary violative of Rule 10 of Andhra Pradesh Excise (Grant of License of Selling by bar and Conditions of License) Rules, 2005 apart from violation of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to refund the renewal of fee Rs.47,94,520/- excessively collected to the petitioner forthwith duly considering the representation of the petitioner dated 17.01.2024 and as well the letter dt.18.01.2024 addressed by the 3rd respondent and pass such other or further orders.…. 2. Succinctly, the writ petition is filed seeking a direction to the 2nd respondent to refund the license fee which was excessively collected for the year 2016-17 and the petitioner was allowed to conduct the business only 110 days for that he required to pay licence fee of Rs.12,05,480, the respondents have collected Rs.47,94,520/- 4 excessively and requested the 2nd respondent to refund the excessive licence fee of Rs.47,94,520/- 3. The 4th Respondent filed his counter affidavit and the relevant paragraphs are hereby extracted: “….It is true that the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in W.P. No.39393 of 2015 Dt.17.07.2019 have ordered to refund the licence fee or to adjust the licence fee for future licence fee with respect to M/s.White House Restaurant & Bar, Nellore District. Further it is submitted that the Hon’ble High Court in W.P. No.8565 of 2023, Dt.27.11.2023 have ordered the respondent authorities either to refund an amount of Rs.47,91,780/- to the petitioner or adjust it towards the future renewal fee of Form 2B with respect to M/s. S.V. Restaurant & Bar, Tirupati of Tirupati District. Further it is submitted that, in a similar case the Hon’ble High Court in W.P. No.16185 of 2023, Dt.26.04.2024 have allowed the writ petition giving liberty to the writ petitioner to make a application/ representation to the concerned within (02) weeks from the date of receipt of the order, seeking refund of the amount and directed the respondent authorities that on receiving such a claim by way of application/representation, the same shall be considered returning of the amount within a period of (03) months. …It is true that the petitioner submitted a representation Dt.18.01.2024 with a request to refund the licence fee which was excessively collected for the year 2016-17, as he was allowed to conduct business for only 110 days to which he 5 ought to pay the requisite licence fee of Rs.12,05,480/- but the authorities have collected Rs.47,94,520/- excessively and requested the Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise for refund of excess amount collected and the said application is pending for disposal. ” 4. In a catena of cases, this Court had held that where dispute revolves round questions of fact, the matter ought not to be entertained under Article 226 of the Constitution. In the present case the respondents have not disputed with the due amount to the petitioner. And the respondents have manifested in their written instruction that they will return the excessive amount to the petitioner. 5. In the case of The D.F.O., South Kheri And Ors. vs Ram Sanehi Singh1, the Apex Court held that when a State decides not to pay the dues with mala fide, with ulterior motives or arbitrarily or when the State avoids payment of the dues with mala fide, with ulterior motives, arbitrarily or when the State discriminates, while making payment dues, such a decision of the State not to pay or such an act of the State of not paying its dues cannot be said to be wholly beyond the reach of Article 226, for asking the writ court to do is to force the State to act in accordance with its constitutional obligation by adhering to the letter and spirit of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 1 (1971) 3 SCC 864 6 6. That the respondents have not disputed the collection of excessive licence fee of Rs.47,94,520/-. Therefore, the present Writ Petition is disposed of directing the concerned authorities to refund the said amount within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order, failing which the petitioner is entitled for interest @ 6% per annum from the date of order of Writ Petition till the date of realization. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Date: 15.09.2025 Harin 7 126 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO W.P.No. 13679 OF 2024 Date: 15-09-2025 Harin