1982 Supreme(AP) 355
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : K.MADHAVA REDDY, P.KODANDA RAMAYYA
K.Ramalakshmayya - Appellant
Versus
The Superintendent of Excise, Guntur - Respondent
Decided On : 09-27-82
The amount paid in advance under rule 19 of the Andhra Pradesh Excise (Lease of Right to Sell Liquor in Retail) Rules is a deposit amount out of which the amount due from the licensee under the excise contract could be recovered under rule 40.
Headnote:
EXCISE - REFUND OF DEPOSIT - ADVANCE PAYMENT UNDER RULE 19 OF ANDHRA PRADESH EXCISE (LEASE OF RIGHT TO SELL LIQUOR IN RETAIL) RULES - WHETHER REFUNDABLE UPON LIFTING OF MINIMUM GUARANTEED QUANTITY OF LIQUOR - INTERPRETATION OF RULES 16, 18, 19, 40 OF THE RULES - HELD, NO SPECIFIC PROVISION FOR REFUND - AMOUNT PAID IN ADVANCE IS A DEPOSIT FOR DUE PERFORMANCE OF CONTRACT - RECOVERABLE UNDER RULE 40 - WRIT PETITION DISMISSED.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, a licensee for Vinukonda group of arrack shops, paid an advance deposit of Rs. 30,050 under rule 19 of the Andhra Pradesh Excise (Lease of Right to Sell Liquor in Retail) Rules. He lifted the entire minimum guaranteed quantity of liquor allotted to the shops. However, the excise authorities withheld the refund of the deposit on the ground that rental due for a period during which the license was suspended for non-payment was not paid.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that there is no specific provision for refund of the amount paid in advance under rule 19 of the rules in the event of the entire minimum guaranteed quantity of liquor being drawn by the licensee. The amount paid in advance is a deposit for the due performance of the contract and is recoverable under rule 40 of the Andhra Pradesh Excise (Arrack and Toddy Licenses General Conditions) Rules.
Issues: Whether the excise authorities are bound to refund the deposit amount paid under rule 19 of the Andhra Pradesh Excise (Lease of Right to Sell Liquor in Retail) Rules upon the lifting of the minimum guaranteed quantity of liquor, even though arrears of rental are due and recoverable from the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted rules 16, 18, 19, and 40 of the Andhra Pradesh Excise (Lease of Right to Sell Liquor in Retail) Rules. It held that the amount paid in advance under rule 19 is a deposit amount out of which the amount due from the licensee under the excise contract could be recovered under rule 40. In the absence of any specific rule directing refund of the amount upon the lifting of the minimum guaranteed quantity of liquor, the court held that it cannot compel the excise authorities to refund the same.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed with costs.
( 1 ) IN this writ petition, the petitioner claims that he is entitled to the refund of the amount paid in advance under rule 19. of the Andhra Pradesh Excise (Lease of Right to Sell Liquor in Retail) rules (hereinafter referred to as the Rules ) on the ground that he had lifted the entire minimum guaranteed quantity of liquor as provided under the licence given to him and that the same cannot be withheld or adjusted towards any rental allegedly due from him.
( 2 ) THE petitioner, who was a licensee for the Vinukonda group of arrack shops for the excise year 1980-81, was required to make a deposit of Rs 30,050 under rule 19 of the rules Admittedly the petitioner had lifted the entire minimum guaranteed quantity of 1,20,000 liters of liquor allotted to the shops the grievance of the petitioner is that although he had lifted the entire quantity, the excise authorities with held the refund of the said amount of deposit on the ground that rental due for the period from 2nd January, 1981 to 9th January, 1981 was not paid, during which his licence stood suspended for non-payment. Questioning the right of the excise authorities to demand and recover the rental for the period during which the licence remained suspended, the petitioner has filed a separate writ petition out of which W A No 422 of 1981, arises, which has been disposed of by a separate judgment holding that the excise autho rides are justified in suspending the licence and the writ petitioner was liable to pay the rental The only question, therefore, that remains to be considered in this writ petition is whether as contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the excise authorities are bound to refund the said amount because he had lifted the entire minimum guaranteed quantity of liquor for which purpose the amount was paid, even though arrears of rental are due and recoverable from the petitioner
( 3 ) THE petitioner based his claim primarily on the ground that no arrears of rental are due from him for the excise year 1980-81 in respect of the Vinukonda group of shops in view of the conclusion we have reached in w. A. No. 422 of 1981, that basis no longer subsists. Even so, Mr. Balakrishna Murthy, learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the amount of Rs. 30,050 paid by him as advance under rule 19 of the Rules is liable to be refunded inasmuch as he had lifted the entire minimum guaranteed quantity of 1,20,000 litres of liquor allotted for the said group of shops. In support of this contention he placed reliance upon rules 16, 18 and 19 of the Andhra Pradesh Excise (Lease of Right to Sell Liquor in Retail) Rules, 1969, which read as follows:"16. Payment of rental by the auction- purchaser - (1) The auction-purchaser shall pay 2% of the annual rental as earnest money together with one month s rental on the date of the auction immediately after the acceptance of the tender or bid as the case may be. The earnest money and one month s rental shall be in addition to the rental deposit required in rule 18. In case of failure to remit the earnest money if any and one month s rental on that day, the shop or group of shops shall be reauctioned (2) Where a shop is assigned to a Tappers co-operative Societies, the Tappers Cooperative Society shall pay 2% of annual rental as earnest money together with half month s rental fixed by the Government on or before the date prescribed for completion of formalities 18. Other requirements- (1 ). Within fifteen days from the date of auction, the auction-purchaser shall deposit two month s rental in cash or in fixed deposit certificates obtained from a Scheduled bank or a District co-operative Central Bank for the period of lease and in case a bank guarantee is offered, such guarantee shall be in force for such period till all proceedings or claims arising from the auction also are finally settled and disposed of. (2) The auction-purchaser shall also be required in all cases where the monthly bid is in exc