F.M.Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.: Aggrieved against the order of the learned single Judge, dated 9.4.2003 in W.P.No.37667 of 2002, the appellant has come forward with this appeal.

2. In the writ petition, the appellant prayed for a declaration that the drawal of lots conducted by the respondents on 2.9.2002 for three shops notified for Thammapatti Town Panchayat for grant of privilege to sell liquor during the year 2002-2003 is unilateral, illegal and un-enforceable in law and for a consequential direction to the respondents, to refund the privilege amount and security deposit along with application fee to the appellant.

3. The brief facts which are required to be stated are, that by a notification dated 8.7.2002 in G.O.Ms.No.128, Prohibition and Excise Department, the first respondent herein deleted Rule 14 of the Tamil Nadu Liquor (Retail vending) Rules, 1989 (herinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’), providing for automatic renewal of licence for the subsequent two years on payment of enhanced privilege amount. The existing licensees of the year 2001-2002, challenged the said amendment.

4. In pursuance of deletion of Rule 14, the first respondent invited applications on 10.7.2002 for grant of licence for retail vending of liquor during the year 2002-2003. The appellant applied for grant of licence for any one of the three shops notified for Thammampatti Town Panchayat by paying 50% of the privilege amount. The Notification dated 8.7.2002 was under challenge by the existing licensees by preferring writ petitions. Initially, on 16.7.2002, an order of interim stay was granted by this Court against the conduct of drawal of lots proposed to be held on 22.7.2002. The drawal of lots scheduled to be held on 22.7.2002 for the grant of licence for the excise year 2002-2003, was postponed in view of the order of interim stay. The Division Bench of this Court passed orders on 24.7.2002 holding that the existing licensees of the year 2001-2002 were entitled for the renewal and that the amendment brought by the Notification dated 8.7.2002 will have only a prospective application, i.e., after 1.8.2004. The order of the Division Bench was challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Pending Special Leave Petition, the State Government granted renewal in favour of the existing licensees for a period of two weeks on 31.7.2002.

5. On 12.8.2002, the appellant applied for refund of privilege amount since the drawal of lots was not held as scheduled. On 26.8.2002, the Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition affirming the judgment of the Division Bench dated 24.7.2002. According to the appellant, again on 1.9.2002, he renewed his request dated 12.8.2002 for refund of the privilege amount in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. However, the drawal of lots was re-scheduled to be held on 2.9.2002. The appellant was selected in the said lot and he was also duly intimation, he was directed to deposit the balance 50% of the privilege amount, security deposit and licence fee. He was also directed to fill in Form VI-A and submit the same before 9.9.2002. It is not in dispute that the appellant paid the remaining 50% of the privilege amount on 2.9.2002. The appellant also submitted Form VI-A along with the required affidavit and copy of the lease agreement on 6.9.2002.

6. Pursuant to the direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, dated 9.9.2002, the Division Bench of this Court, by its order dated 25.9.2002 held that 4632 existing licensees who paid part of the privilege amount by 31.7.2002 or thereafter, were also entitled for the renewal. According to the appellant, on 13.9.2002, he once again renewed it request for the refund of the privilege amount as the right of 4632 existing licensees who paid the proportionate privilege amount to get renewal was directed to be decidied by the Division Bench by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its order dated 9.9.2002. The appellant’s request was not considered, but on the other hand, he was issued

Click Here to Read the rest of this document