Petitioner seeks to issue a Writ of Mandamus to declare Condition No.V(f) of Auction Notification of the respondent published in the District Gazette, Chittoor, dated 08-04-2002, and the action of the respondent in not refunding the advance amount of Rs.1,50,000/- paid by the petitioner by way of DD as illegal and arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice and to direct the respondent to refund the said amount along with interest.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that pursuant to the notification, dated 08-04-2002, issued by the respondent for grant of lease hold rights for sale of Indian Liquor, Foreign Liquor and Beer in retail under IL 24 licence for the lease year 2002-03, the petitioner submitted an application on 15-04-2002 along with challan for Rs.5,000/- towards non-refundable application fee and also D.D. for a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- towards 1/3rd of the annual licence fee. It is stated that he could not present on the date of selection fixed on 17-04-2002, as an accident took place in front of the bus, in which he was travelling, which resulted in blockage of road. As he was not present at the time of selection, the amount paid by him was said to have been forfeited and leasehold rights have been granted in favour of third party by drawing another lot again. The petitioner is not questioning the action of the respondent in selecting some other person. But, he made a representation, dated 25-04-2002, enclosing a copy of FIR registered by the police relating to the accident, requesting to refund the amount paid by him. In fact, the said amount has not been refunded in view of the Auction Condition No.V (f), which stipulates the forfeiture of the amount and, therefore, the petitioner questions Condition No.V(f) of the Auction Notification.

3. A counter has been filed by the respondent stating that pursuant to the Notification, dated 08-04-2002, inviting applications for grant of lease hold rights to sell Indian Liquor, Foreign Liquor and Beer in retail under IL 24 licence for the lease year 2002-03, the petitioner submitted an application on 15-04-2002 along with challan for Rs.5,000/- towards non-refundable application fee and also D.D. for a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- towards 1/3rd of the annual licence fee. The selection for grant of IL-24 licence has been taken place on 17-04- 2002 at 11.00 a.m. and the petitioner was selected for the first shop of Tirupathi Rural Mandal, but neither the petitioner nor his power of attorney holder was present to sign in the selection registers and, therefore, the selection of the petitioner for the first shop of Tirupathi Rural Mandal was cancelled after waiting for a reasonable time and after making announcement and accordingly, the deposit amount of Rs.1,50,000/- was forfeited to the Government as per conditions of the Notification, and after drawal of lots again, fresh candidate one Sri C.Janardhan Rao was selected by deleting the name of the petitioner. It is stated that the 'Selection Authority' has cancelled the selection of the petitioner and forfeited the deposit amount to the Government strictly in accordance with the conditions of the Notification and in accordance with Rule 31(4) (e) of A.P. Indian Liquor and Foreign Liquor Rules, 1970 (for short "1970 Rules"). Thus, it is stated that the forfeiture of the amount is not illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that forfeiture of the amount under Condition No.V (f) of the Gazette Notification, dated 08-04- 2002, is illegal and contrary to the provisions of the A.P.Excise Act and the Rules made there under. If the petitioner was not entitled to get shop in question due to his absence at that particular time, the question of forfeiting the said amount does not arise in view of the fact that the other bidders are available for the said shop.

5. In support of his contention that the petitioner is entitled for refund of the amount deposited, he relied on an