IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 02-02-2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE

1. Villa Reddi Naidu Proprietor Sri Vijaya Durga Wines, Rep By Power Agent Villa Durga Ramesh Kumar 2-9-502 Thota Street Yanam 533

464 Petitioner(s)

Vs

1. The Deputy Commissioner (excise)

Puducherry, Industrial Estate Road, Thattanchavady Puducherry 605 008 2.The Deputy Commissioner (excise)

Yanam, Puducherry Respondent(s)

PRAYER Call for the reocrds comprised in the impugned order made in No. 999 / DCEY / D.1 / Renewal /2021-22 (Vol. II) / 106 dated 04.07.2024 on the file of the 2nd respondent quash the same and consequenlty direct the respondnets to renew the FL-2license granted to the petitioner within a time frame as may be fixed by this honble Court For Petitioner(s): Mr.V.P.Sengukuttvel Senior Counsel for M/s.D.Jagajothi For Respondent(s): Mr.V.Vasantha Kumar, AGP(Pondy) For Respondent

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed, challenging the impugned order dated

04.07.2024 passed by the second respondent, rejecting the petitioner’s application seeking for renewal of the petitioner’s FL2 licence for the premises morefully described in the prayer to this writ petition.

2. The second respondent has rejected the petitioner’s application by stating the following reasons:

a) The petitioner cannot seek for renewal of FL2 licence, since the petitioner has approached for renewal after a long lapse of time from the date of the expiry of the FL2 licence granted to the petitioner earlier;

b) Rule 115A of the Puducherry Excise Rules, 1970 provides that an application for renewal of licence shall be submitted to the licencing authority not less than thirty days before the date of expiry of the licence. Since the same has not been done by the petitioner, the petitioner is not entitled for renewal of FL2 licence;

c) Being a matter of renewal of FL2 licence and since the same has been sought for after a very long period of time from its due date, a decision at the level of Government has to be taken and hence, a proposal has been sent to the Deputy Commissioner (Excise) Puducherry, with a request to take up the issue with the Government;

d) The Honourable Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) No.1923/2003, by its order dated 11.11.2003 had upheld the order of the Madras High Court by dismissing the SLP on account of the renewal of licence as sought for after a lapse of considerable point of time. But, however, the Honourable Supreme Court permitted the renewal of the licence by holding that the same cannot be treated as a precedent in any similar future cases.

3. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner drew the attention of this Court to the application submitted by the petitioner on 03.03.1982, seeking for renewal of the petitioner’s FL2 licence on payment of necessary charges. He would submit that though the petitioner had submitted the application seeking for renewal of FL2 licence within the prescribed time limit, the respondents failed to consider the said application on merits and in accordance with law by passing final orders. Therefore, he would submit that the petitioner cannot be penalised by the respondents.

4. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner also drew the attention of this Court to the observations made by the second respondent in the impugned order viz., the second respondent has observed that being a matter of renewal of FL2 licence after a very long period from its due date, the decision at the level of Government has to be taken and hence, a proposal has been sent to the Deputy Commissioner (Excise) Puducherry with a request to take up the issue with the Government. Relying upon the said observations, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner would submit that without waiting for a decision of the Government, the second respondent has passed the impugned order, rejecting the petitioner’s application seeking for renewal of the petitioner’s FL2 licence, which is arbitrary and illegal.

5. The learned