The court affirmed that refunds of licence fees are not permitted unless the licence is revoked as per established rules, while acknowledging the exceptional case for lockdown periods.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner is the Managing Director of the firm under the name and style M/s Kanichai Hotels Pvt. Ltd. The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P14 order whereby the claim of the petitioner for a refund of the proportionate licence fee is rejected. The petitioner contends that an amount of Rs.33,75,000/- was collected as a licence fee for the purpose of granting FL11 and FL3 licences for the year 2017-18, with Rs.29,05,000/- for the FL3 licence and Rs.

4,70,000/- for the FL-11 licence.

2. It is alleged that the FL3 licence granted to the petitioner was only on 01.07.2017, having a validity from 01.07.2017 to 31.03.2018. On 11.11.2017, without any prior notice, the hotel premises were sealed for want of a star classification. It is submitted that the petitioner made use of the licences FL11 and FL3 only for periods of 14 days and 151 days respectively, and hence he is entitled to claim a refund of the proportionate licence fee amounting to Rs.19,23,397.26/-. Petitioner also contended that the period when the lockdown was declared due to the COVID-19 pandemic should also be excluded. Likewise, the lockdown imposed in Thiruvananthapuram city between 06.07.2020 and 14.08.2020 made it impossible for the petitioner to function during this period, entitling him to a refund.

3. The petitioner had earlier filed W.P.(C) No.17659 of

2022 for a declaration that he is entitled to a refund of the proportionate licence fee for all the non-operational periods. Through Ext.P9 judgment dated 01.06.2022, it was found that the benefit of the Government order dated 01.04.2022 applicable to all foreign liquor licence holders will be extended to the petitioner, and the claim for the year 2017 was declined on the grounds of delay and laches. Writ appeal No.867 of 2022 was filed against the said judgment, wherein the Division Bench found, as directed by the learned Single Judge, that the petitioner was entitled to get the benefit of the Government Order dated 01.04.2022, which was for the period from 24.04.2021 to 14.06.2021. Another claim made by the petitioner was also directed to be considered.

4. Based on the above, Exts.P11 and P12 orders were passed by the Excise Commissioner. Against those orders, the petitioner had approached the Government through Ext.P13. Through Ext.P14, the Government, by order dated 05.12.2022, found that the petitioner is not entitled to the refund sought for and, accordingly, rejected the same, which is impugned in the writ petition.

5. The details of the petitioner's claim and the response of the respondents are tabulated hereunder:

6. A counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the 1^st respondent stating that the petitioner was granted an FL11 licence for the year 2017-18, and later, in accordance with the policy of the Government and on the application submitted by the petitioner, he was granted an FL3 licence for the same premises for which he paid Rs.29,05,000/- as annual rent for the year 2017-18. Later, the validity of the star classification awarded to the hotel expired on 11.11.2017, and therefore, the petitioner was not eligible to run the FL3 licence as per Rule 13(3) and 13(B) of the Foreign Liquor Rules , and accordingly, the Circle Inspector of Excise, Thiruvananthapuram, closed down the bar on the same day.

7. In the counter affidavit, the 1^st respondent relied on Rule 14 and 14(A) of Foreign Liquor Rules stating that if any licence under Rule 13 is granted in the course of a financial year, the full annual fee has to be paid and the licence shall expire at the end of the financial year. Likewise, Rule 14(A) also states that the licensee has to pay the full annual fee for the financial year, and there is no provision to realise t