APHC010345322016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3330] MONDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 3293/2016 Between: 1. BORRA VENKATESU,, S/O. EDUKONDALU, RIO. NIDADAVOLE, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT, LICENSEE OF A4 SHOP BEARING G.S1.NO.144, AT DOOR NO.3-140, VIJJESWARAM, NIDADAVOLU MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 2. VEERAMALLA ESWARA RAO,, S/O. CHINNA VENKATA RAO, R/O. USULUMARRU, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT, LICENSEE OF A4 SHOP BEARING G.S1.NO.106, AT PREMISES BEARING NO.9 & 10, WARD NO.5, KOVVUR MUNICIPALITY, KOVVUR, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 3. KONDETI UDAYA BHASKAR,, S/O. KASI VISWANADHAM, KOYYALAGUDEM, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT, LICENSEE OF A4 SHOP BEARING G.S1.NO.107, AT D.NO.12-2-6, WARD NO.13, KOVVUR MUNICIPALITY, KOVVUR, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 4. J.V.S.CHOWDARY,, S/O. TATALU, R/O. KOVVUR, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT, 2B LICENSEE OF M/S. TEJA RESTAURANT & BAR, L.NO.15/2006-2007, AT KOVVUR, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 5. GELLA SURESH,, S/O. BABURAO, R/O. KOVVUR, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT, LICENSEE OF A4 SHOP BEARING G.S1.NO.142, AT KUMARADEVAM VILLAGE, KOVVUR MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 6. MYLASU VARDHINI KUMAR,, S/O. DURGA PRASAD, R/O. NIDADAVOLE, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT, LICENSEE OF A4 SHOP BEARING G.S1.NO.116, AT PREMISES BEARING NO.8-298, VADAPALLI OF KOVVURU MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 7. SOMAROUTHU VINAYAKA VENKATESWARA RAO,, S/O. KANAKA RAO, R/O. POLAVARAM, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT, LICENSEE OF A4 SHOP BEARING G.SI.NO.160, AT PREMISES BEARING NO.1-12/1A, 1B, PRAKKILANKA, TALLAPUDI MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 2 8. MUTHINA RADHAKRISHNA,, S/O. NARASIMHA RAO, R/O. MALAKAPALLI, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT, LICENSEE OF A4 SHOP BEARING G.S1.NO.153, AT PREMISES BEARING NO.7-48/4, VEGESWARAPURAM, TALLAPUDI MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, PROHIBITION AND EXCISE DEPARTMENT, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, A.P. SECRETARIAT, AT HYDERABAD. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF PROHIBITION AND EXCISE, ANDHRA PRADESH, AT HYDERABAD. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, WEST GODAVARI, AT ELURU. 4. THE SUPERINTENDENT, PROHIBITION AND EXCISE DEPARTMENT, HURU, WEST GODAVARI 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 a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in not refunding the proportionate license fee for the period from midnight of 13.07.2015 to midnight of 25.07.2015, in respect of the petitioners' A4 Shops and 2B licenses, during which period, the petitioners were prevented from doing business on account of Godavari Pushkarams, pursuant to the Notification in proceedings Ref.No.311/2015/A2, dated 11.07.2015, issued by the 3rd respondent, in spite of repeated requests and representations dated 18.12.2015 submitted to respondents 2 and 4, as arbitrary, illegal, unjust, deprivation of livelihood, failure to exercise power, contrary to the provisions of the Excise Act and the Rules made thereunder, violative of the Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to refund petitioners' proportionate license fee amount for the period from midnight of 13.07.2015 to midnight of 25.07.2015, in respect of the petitioners' A4 Shops and 2B licenses, of West Godavari District IA NO: 1 OF 2016(WPMP 4195 OF 2016 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to consider petitioners' representations dated 18.12.2015 for refund of their respective proportionate license fees for the period from midnight of 13.07.2015 to midnight of 25.07,2015, in respect of their respective A4 Shops and 2B licenses, of West Godavari District, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition 3 Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. C V R RUDRA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR PROHIBITION & EXCISE (AP) 2. GP FOR PROHIBITION EXCISE (AP) The Court made the following: 4 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.3293 of 2016 ORDER:- The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “…to issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in not refunding the proportionate license fee for the period from midnight of 13.07.2015 to midnight of 25.07.2015, in respect of the petitioners' A4 Shops and 2B licenses, during which period, the petitioners were prevented from doing business on account of Godavari Pushkarams, pursuant to the Notification in proceedings Ref.No.311/2015/A2, dated 11.07.2015, issued by the 3rd respondent, in spite of repeated requests and representations dated 18.12.2015 submitted to respondents 2 and 4, as arbitrary, illegal, unjust, deprivation of livelihood, failure to exercise power, contrary to the provisions of the Excise Act and the Rules made thereunder, violative of the Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to refund petitioners' proportionate license fee amount for the period from midnight of 13.07.2015 to midnight of 25.07.2015, in respect of the petitioners' A4 Shops and 2B licenses, of West Godavari District and pass such other orders…” 2. Shorn of all necessary facts, the short point that arises for consideration is that whether the writ petitioners are entitled for refund of proportionate license fee paid by them, in respect of the shops which are required to be kept closed under Section 20 Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968 (hereinafter for short referred to as the „Act‟). 5 3. The 3rd respondent-District Collector-cum-District Magistrate issued notification vide proceedings in Rc.No.311/2015/A2, dated 11.07.2015, exercising the powers conferred under Section 20 of the Act, for closure of the liquor shops situated within 500 meters from the banks of River Godavari in West Godavari District from midnight of 13.07.2015 to midnight on 25.07.2015, in connection with the celebration of Pushkarams festival, to maintain public peace. 4. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners, who are dissatisfied with the decision of the respondents in not refunding the proportionate license fee for the period from midnight 13.07.2015 to midnight on 25.07.2015, concerning the petitioners' A4 Shops and 2B licences. During this time, the petitioners were directed not to conduct business due to the Godavari Pushkarams, in accordance with the notification issued vide proceedings Ref.No.311/2015/A2, dated 11.07.2015. The petitioners state that they are entitled to such a refund under Section 20 of the Act. The relevant portion of Section 20(3) is extracted hereunder: “…20. Closing of shops for preservation of public peace - (3) The licensee shall not, on account of the closure of his shop under this section, be entitled to any compensation except to the refund of such licence fee paid by him in respect of the shop as is proportionate to the period which the shop is required to be kept closed under this section…” 6 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners would argue that as per sub-section 3 of Section 20 of the Act, the petitioners are not entitled to any compensation except to refund of such license fee paid by them in respect of the shops, proportionately for the period closed i.e., midnight of 13.07.2015 to midnight on 25.07.2015. 6. The 3rd respondent-District Collector-cum-District Magistrate filed counter-affidavit and it is stated that petitioners are not entitled for refund of proportionate license fee, for the period from 13.07.2015 to midnight on 25.07.2015, for the shops closed during pushkarams, relying on Rule 60 of the Andhra Pradesh Excise (Grant of licence of selling by shop and conditions of licence) Rules, 2012, (hereinafter for short referred to as the „Rules‟), relevant portion reads as follows: “60. B: The Licensee shall not be entitled to remission of licence fee or compensation on account of closure of the licensed premises when the same is ordered to close under Section 20 of the Act…” 7. In this regard the learned counsel for the petitioners argues that the sub-section 3 of Section 20 clearly manifests that the petitioners are entitled for remission of licensee fee proportionately in respect of the shops, for the period closed, and the Section prevails over the Rule 60 of the Rules. 8. Section 72 of Act enables the rule making authority to make the rules to carry out all or any of the purposes of this Act. Section 72 grants authority to make rules with phrases like „to carry out the 7 provisions‟ or „to carry out the purposes‟. If the Court look at the parent Act, the rule-making power has been conferred under Section 72, to make rules prescribing the powers and duties of Prohibition and Excise officers, for carrying out all or any of the purpose of the Act. It is trite that Rules are introduced to translate the scheme of the Act into reality. 9. Rule 60 of the Rules stipulates that a licensee is not entitled to a remission of the licence fee or to compensation, when the licensed premises are ordered to be closed under Section 20 of the Act. Section 20(3) of the Act specifically disentitles a licensee holder from receiving any compensation, and Rule 60 further provides that a licensee is not entitled to any remission; thus, the Rule is in furtherance of Section 20 of the Act. It is trite a Court must apply both procedural and substantive law. 10. In the opinion of this Court, Rule 60 is a supplement to Sub- section 3 of Section 20 of the Act. Therefore, the argument that the Section prevails over the provision (Rule 60) lacks merit, Rule 60 has the same effect as Section 20 of the Act. 11. On perusal of the material available on record the notification dated 11.07.2015, clearly indicates that in pursuant to Godavari Pushkarams, the liquor shops were ordered to be closed, from 8 midnight of 13.07.2015 to midnight on 25.07.2015, which is a genuine reason. Therefore, the petitioners are not entitled for any relief. 12. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. 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: 24.11.2025 KBN 9 88 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.3293 of 2016 Date: 24.11.2025 KBN