(Per D.S.R.Varma, J.)

Heard the teamed Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise, appearing for the appellants in both the Writ Appeals as well respondents in the Writ Petitions, as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondents In both the Writ Appeals as well as petitioners in the remaining three writ petitions.

2. Since the issue involved and the parties being same, with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants as well as the learned counsel appearing for the appellants as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondent, all the matters are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.

3. Writ Appeal No 1752 of 2003 is directed against the common order, dated 23-04-2003, allowing the writ petition W.P.No.24191 of 2002, filed by the licencee, seeking to declare the Memo NO.1995/Ex.III-2/2001-2, dated 12-04-2001, issued by the first respondent therein, and the consequential action of the third respondent therein in rejecting the claim of the petitioner therein for refund of the rentals and licence fee for the period from 17-05-1998 to 31-03-1999, during which period the petitioner could not conduct the business by an order Rc.N0765/2000/B5, dated 28-05-2002, as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction.

4. Writ Appeal NO.1849 of 2003 is directed against the common order, dated 23-04-2003, allowing the writ petition WP.No.25429 of 2002, filed by the licencee, seeking to declare the action of the respondents in withholding the refund of the proportionate licence fee for the period commencing from 16-04-1998 to 25-06-1998 during the closure of the business of the petitioner therein on account of illegal cancellation of the licence held by the petitioner therein as illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to refund the proportionate licence fee for the said period forthwith.

5. The prayer in all the three writ petitions i.e., W.PNos.7975 of 2003,10911 of 2003 and 6696 of 2004 is as follows:-

“..... to issue writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction declaring the Memo No.1995/Ex.III-2/ 2001-2, dated 12-04-2001, issued by the 1" respondent and the consequential action of the 3" respondent in rejecting the claim of the petitioners for refund of the licence fee for the period during which the petitioners could not conduct the business by an order RC.No.103/ 2002/B3, dated 10-12-2002, as illegal, arbitrary and without Jurisdiction and pass such other or further orders as the Hon'ble Court fees deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."

6. The appellants in both the Writ Appeals and the respondents in the other three Writ petitions are officials of State while the respondents in the Writ Appeals and the petitioners m the said three writ petitions are the licence holders.

7. For the sake of convenience, in this common Judgment, the parties will be referred to as per their array In the Writ petitions.

8. The question involved in all the petitions is - as to whether the appellants were at an obligation to refund the licence fee proportionately for the period for which the licence was suspended on account of some alleged irregularities under law, committed by the respondents?

9. The facts, in brief, are that the writ petitioners were IL licencees for the excise year 1998-1999. During the subsistence of said licences, on the ground that there were some irregularities, the licences were initially suspended pending enquiry and cancellation had ensued pursuant to an enquiry conducted. Challenging the said action, the writ petitioners had taken the matter in appeal to the competent authority and when the appeal was dismissed, the same was carried by way of revision to the Government The Government, while allowing the revision, set aside the orders of cancellation of the licences. Therefore, It was the contention of the Writ petitioners that since the cancellation orders were set aside, as a corollary, the licences would get r