The principle of estoppel applied, barring the petitioner from seeking a refund of the privilege fee after voluntarily paying and enjoying the benefits of FL-3 license despite losing the three-star status.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent praying to set aside the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.1434 of 2015 dated 20.04.2016.)

P.B. Balaji, J.

1. The statutory respondents being aggrieved by the order dated 20.04.2016 in W.P.No.1434 of 2015, have preferred the present Writ Appeal.

2. The parties are arrayed as per their rank in the Writ Petition. Since the petitioner died their legal heirs are brought as respondents in the present Writ Appeal.

3. In order to appreciate the case before us, it would be appropriate to briefly narrate the facts of the case before the Writ Court.

4. The respondent herein as petitioner filed W.P.No.1434 of 2015 seeking to quash the proceedings dated 22.12.2014 on the file of the 1st appellant herein and to consequently direct the 3rd appellant herein to refund the excess privilege amount collected from the respondent herein and to collect only the privilege fee applicable for non-star status hotels in respect of license in FL3-No.1/2004-2005.

5. The case of the petitioner in the Writ Petition was that he commenced a hotel in the name and style of Hotel Golden Palace situated at Trichy Road, Namakkal. The petitioner had obtained three star status for the said hotel from the Regional Director of India Tourism, Chennai and therefore in compliance with the said star status, the petitioner had to mandatorily have a bar room in the hotel. The petitioner therefore applied for FL-3 license to the 1st respondent which necessitated payment of a higher privilege fee than that was payable for other regular bars in other hotels. Subsequently, the petitioner did not renew the license, until he again made an application in 2004. The 1st respondent issued FL-3 license on 30.06.2004. Since the hotel business was running at a loss, the petitioner sought withdrawal of the three star status and accordingly made an application to the Regional Director, India Tourism. Consequently, the Regional Director, in and by letter dated 11.05.2005, cancelled the three star classification and issued a certificate dated 10.10.2006, clarifying that the petitioner is not a three star hotel classified by the Department of Tourism, with effect from 07.03.2005. However, despite the withdrawal of the three star status, the petitioner was required to pay the privilege fee of Rs.1,00,000/- and when the petitioner approached the 3rd respondent for reducing the privilege fee amount, the 3rd respondent had directed the petitioner to pay the entire amount, failing which the 3rd respondent issued a threat that the license of the petitioner would be cancelled. It is the further case of the petitioner that the privilege fee was enhanced to Rs.4,00,000/- from the year 2009 in respect of FL-3 license. On 01.03.2010, the petitioner addressed a communication to the 1st respondent seeking refund of the excess amount collected till 2011. Acting on the petitioner''s request, the 1st respondent called for a report from the 2nd respondent, who conducted a spot inspection on 24.11.2010 and submitted a report to the 1st respondent, stating that the Regional Director of India Tourism has cancelled the three star status and therefore the petitioner could be refunded the excess privilege amount to the tune of Rs.8,31,138/-. The petitioner made a further representation on 03.04.2012 to the 1st respondent seeking refund of excess privilege amount collected ever since 2005-2006, totalling in all a sum of Rs.13,00,000/-. As no orders were passed by the 1st respondent, the petitioner filed a Writ Petition in W.P.No.16347 of 2012 for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus. The said Writ Petition was allowed by this Court on 14.11.2014, directing the respondents to dispose of the representation of the petitioner, taking into consideration the report of the 2nd respondent dated 03.01.2011. The petitioner was called for a personal hearing on 01.12.2014 and he submitted all relevant documents. However, in and by the impugned proceedings, the 1st responde