- (1.) Petitioner before this Court seeks a writ of mandamus commanding the State Excise authorities to refund the security money deposited by the petitioner to the tune of Rs. 4,93,035/-. From the records of the present writ petition we find that one Pushpa Devi, respondent No. 5, was granted license for the retail sale of country liquor for the locality of Naini, Station Road, Allahabad in the year 2002-03. Since she was not able to deposit the required license fee, the petitioner is stated to have been taken a co-licensee. For the purpose the petitioner entered into a partnership with Pushpa Devi on 10.3.2003. It is further his case that for the Excise Year 2003-04 when the license in the name of Pushpa Devi was being renewed, he actually deposited the security money to the tune of Rs. 4,08,300/- and in the license for the year 2003-04 his name was also included as a co-licensee for the shop in question. Reference has been made to a document enclosed at page 57 of the present writ petition. In the year 2004-05 petitioner claims that he deposited the basic license fee as well as additional security money. It has been stated that for the aforesaid two years i.e. 2003-04 and 2004-05, all excise dues were clear for the shop in question, therefore, the security money should have been refunded.
(2.) In the year 2005-06 the State Government came out with a policy that the license will not be issued in favour of two persons and there shall be individual licenses. According to the petitioner for the year 2005-06 license of the shop in question was renewed in favour of Pushpa Devi alone and he has nothing to do with the license of the shop or the default committed thereto for the year 2005-06 or thereafter. Petitioner has made reference to the letter written by the district Excise Authorities in the matter of refund of security money to the petitioner dated 21.5.2005 (Annexure-10 the present writ petition) as well as the order of the District Magistrate dated 14.9.2005. It is his case that an order was passed by the Excise Commissioner on 5.1.2006 that the security money would be returned to the petitioner after the original suit filed by Pushpa Devi being Original Suit No. 460 of 2005 is finally decided. The suit is stated to have been dismissed in the year 2008 but the security money has not been returned to the petitioner. He has, therefore, approached this Court by means of the present petition.
(3.) A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State and it has been stated that because of non-lifting of minimum guarantee quota for the shop in question for the year 2006-07, the license granted in favour of Pushpa Devi was canceled vide order dated 19.2.2007. The contracted money short paid had been adjusted against the security deposit of the said licensee. It has also been stated that in the relevant year 2003-04, the challan for deposit of the security money stands in the name of Pushpa Devi alone. It has been contended that the order of adjustment of security money deposited in the name of Pushpa Devi against the outstanding dues of the Excise Department having not been challenged before this Court, there cannot be any mandamus for refund of the said security money.;