IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 12.04.2019

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA

W.P.No.29624 of 2008 and

M.P.No.1 of 2008

D.Muhamad Musthaffa

...Petitioner

-vs-

1. The State of Tamilnadu,

Rep. By its Secretary to Government,

Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,

Fort St.George, Chennai

2. The Commissioner

Prohibition and Excise Department,

Chepauk, Chennai – 5

3. The Assistant Commissioner [Excise]

Collectorate, Dharmapuri

4. The Assistant Commissioner (Excise)

The O/o Assistant Commissioner (Excise)

Krishnagiri.

5. The Divisional Excise Officer,

The Office of the Divisional Excise,

Hosur, Krishnagiri District

.. Respondents

Prayer:

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Certiorarified

Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the Impugned Order

of the Fifth Respondent passed in Na.Ka.No.128/2007/A/, dated

10.03.2008 and quash the same and consequently direct the

respondents to refund a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-, which was

deposited by the petitioner as Security deposit towards retail

licence no.4/DKI/2001-2002 for retail vending in Indian-Made

Foreign Sprit and Beer at Nehru Nagar, Kelamangalam Village,

Denkanikottai Taluk, Krishnagiri District.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

For Petitioner

:Mr.P.Mathivanan

For Respondents

:Mr.K.Ravikumar

Additional Government Pleader for R1

No appearance for R2 to 5

ORDER

The writ petition has been filed questioning the impugned

order bearing Na.Ka.No.128/2007/A dated 10.03.2008 passed by the

fifth respondent and seeking a direction to the respondents to

refund a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-, which was deposited by the

petitioner as Security deposit towards retail licence

No.4/DKI/2001-2002 for retail vending in Indian-Made Foreign

Sprit and Beer at Nehru Nagar, Kelamangalam Village,

Denkanikottai Taluk, Krishnagiri District.

2.Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit

that during the year 2001, the petitioner has applied for

licence for retail vending of IMFL liquor. However, the

Assistant Commissioner (Excise), Dharmapuri, the third

respondent herein, by order dated 28.07.2001, has issued a

retail licence for retail vending in Indian – Made Foreign Sprit

and Beer and the petitioner has deposited a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-

towards security deposit and the above licence has been issued

for the period from 01.08.2001 to 31.07.2002 and thereafter, the

same has been extended for another year ending on 31.07.2003.

According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner,

after the expiry of the above licence, the authorities did not

return the above said amount. While so, on 23.08.2001, the third

respondent has issued notice to the petitioner stating that the

petitioner has lifted 27.65% of I.M.F.L. and 43.93% of Beer and

therefore, the petitioner has to lift 100% liquor as fixed by

the authorities on or before 25.08.2001, otherwise, steps will

be taken for cancelling his licence as if he has violated

licence rule No.25. However, by notices dated 05.10.2001,

23.10.2001, 19.11.2001 and 08.04.2002, the third respondent

informed the petitioner the if he did not maintain 100% off-

take, action would be initiated against him. According to the

petitioner, he requested the third respondent to refund the

security deposit of Rs.2,00,000/- and the petitioner was orally

informed that he owed a sum of Rs.2,89,998/- due as penalty. In

this regard, the petitioner made representations dated

22.10.2007 and 27.02.2008. Despite the same, the present

impugned order has been passed withholding a sum of

Rs.2,00,000/- and making further demand of Rs.96,637/-.

Challenging the same, the petitioner has come to this Court.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

3.But this Court is unable to ac