Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:27195-DB Chief Justice's Court Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 507 of 2025 Petitioner :- Ravi Nayak Respondent :- State of U.P. and 3 others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shailendra Kumar Tripathi for Abhinav Dwivedi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C., Manoj Kumar Kushwaha (S.C.) Hon'ble Arun Bhansali,Chief Justice Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra,J. 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to the respondents to release the amount of security deposited by the petitioner along with interest. 2. It is, inter alia, indicated that petitioner was given license for retail sale of country liquor for the year 2012-13 for the area Indergarh, Kannauj. The petitioner deposited the requisite license fee and security deposit. An F.I.R. was lodged against the petitioner under Section 60(2) of the Excise Act and the case under Sections 272, 420 IPC was registered against petitioner. He was sent to jail and was granted bail after five days. A show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 22.03.2013 as to why his license may not be cancelled and security deposit be forfeited. No response was filed by the petitioner. By order dated 30.03.2013, the order was passed cancelling petitioner's license and forfeiting the security deposit and license fee. It appears that after trial, on 31.01.2019 the petitioner was acquitted of the charges. Whereafter an application dated 25.09.2019 has been filed, seeking return of the security deposit along with the copy of the judgment. Whereafter further representation has been made in the year 2023 and now the present petition has been filed confining the claim to return of the security deposit. 3. Counsel for the petitioner made submissions that despite passage of sufficiently long time since filing of the representations by the petitioner in the year 2019/2023 the same have not been decided and the security deposit has not been refunded to which the petitioner is entitled and therefore, the respondent may be directed to decide the pending representations. 4. Learned Standing Counsel, appearing for the department, has no objection to the decision on the representations made by the petitioners. 5. In the overall fact situation of the case, wherein the representations made by the petitioner continuously remained pending with the respondents, we deem it appropriate and therefore order the respondent no. 3 to pass an appropriate order on the representations made by the petitioner. Petitioner would be free to file a fresh detailed representation, if so, advised. The requisite would be done by the District Magistrate within a period of four weeks from the date a copy of this order, along with fresh representation, if any, is presented by the petitioner with the said authority. 6. With the above directions, the petition is disposed of. Order Date :- 27.2.2025 Sharad/ P. Sri. (Kshitij Shailendra,J.) (Arun Bhansali,C.J.) Digitally signed by :- SHARAD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad