The court emphasized that the refusal to refund the proportionate amount of license fee was unreasonable and arbitrary, and directed the respondent to calculate and refund the amount with interest if not refunded within six weeks.

JUDGMENT :

The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the letter as contained in memo No. 282 dated 18.02.2019 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition) issued by the respondent No.5 to the petitioner pursuant to his application dated 26.12.2018 whereby his request for refund of excess amount charged against annual license fee of his bar/restaurant for the financial year 2017-18 has been rejected.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had earlier preferred a writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 4135/2018 before this Court challenging the letter as contained in memo No. 1839 dated 03.11.2017 issued by the respondent No.5 whereby he was directed to pay Rs.18 Lac as license fee for the entire financial year 2017-18 despite the fact that he could run his bar-cum-restaurant only for five months. The said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 05.11.2018, the relevant part of which reads as under :

“Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is carrying on the business of bar and restaurant for several years and his bar licence has been renewed from time to time by the respondent authorities. It is further stated that in view of the judgment dated 15th December, 2016 rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Tamilnadu & Ors. Vs. K. Balu & Anr., reported in (2017) 2 SCC 281, the sale of liquor within 500 meters from the national and state highways was prohibited. According to the respondents, the petitioner’s restaurant-cum-bar fell within 500 meters from the national and state highways and as such the bar licence of the petitioner of the petitioner was withheld by them. However, the said aspect was clarified by the Hon’ble Supreme Court subsequently vide order dated 11th July, 2017 passed in S.L.P. (Civil) No. 10243 of 2017 (Arrive Safe Society of Chandigarh Vs. The Union Territory of Chandigarh & Anr.). Accordingly, the petitioner preferred a representation before the Commissioner of Excise, Government of Jharkhand on 28th August, 2017, pointing out that as per the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, no such restriction is there for sale of liquor within the municipal area and, thus, requested for release of his bar licence. Thereafter, the respondent no.3 issued order dated 30th August, 2017, clarifying that the order of the Hon’ble Apex court does not prohibit the licensed establishments within the municipal area from serving liquor. Subsequently, in response to the representation of the petitioner dated 28th August, 2017, the respondent no.5 vide impugned letter dated 3rd November, 2017, directed the petitioner to deposit Rs.18.00 Lacs in the treasury through challan on account of annual licence fee. The petitioner though deposited the said amount and the bar licence was granted to him on 13th November, 2017 for the year 2017-18, but due to the aforesaid confusion prevailing with the respondent authorities, the petitioner could run his bar-cum-restaurant only for about five months i.e. from 13th November, 2017 to March, 2018. The petitioner, therefore, represented the respondent no.5 on 24th February, 2018, requesting, inter alia, to extend the period of licence for entire one year i.e. up to 12th November, 2018 or to refund the proportionate amount of Rs.11,15,000/- from the total amount deposited by the petitioner towards licence fee for the entire financial year 2017-18. However, the said representation of the petitioner has not yet been responded.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and looking to the nature of the prayer made in the writ petition, the petitioner is given liberty to file a fresh representation before the respondent no.5, claiming proportionate refund of the amount deposited by the petitioner towards the bar licence fee for the financial year 2017-18. On receipt of such representation, the respondent no.5 after providing due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner/his representative shall take appropriate decision by passin