K K V VEERABHADRARAO Vs. SUPRINTENDENT OF EXCISE VISAKHAPATNAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The right to manufacture, supply and sell any intoxicant in the State of Andhra Pradesh is governed by the statutory provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968. Those provisions require that the right to sell intoxicants should be purchased from the State. Under the provisions of the aforesaid Act, the Anakapalli Group of Arrack Shops was first sold for the abkari year 1978-79 in a public auction to one M. Suryanarayana. But that auction was cancelled and a re-auction was conducted in which the petitioner was declared as the highest bidder. The petitioner's bid was accepted and a lease and a licence were granted to him for that group of shops.

(2.) The abkari year normally commences from 1st October, and ends with 31st September, of the succeeding year. The amount of rentals payable by an abkari contractor as consideration for the grant of the right to vend intoxicants would depend upon the volume of business that he estimates to be able to carry on for the 12 months.

(3.) The aforesaid Suryanarayana whose auction had been cancelled had filed a writ petition challenging the cancellation of his lease and the consequent re-auction in favour of the present petitioner. This Court admitted that writ petition of Suryanarayana filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and also granted an interim order which directed stay of all further proceedings. The consequence of that order of stay was to prevent the present petitioner from exploiting his lease from 1st October, 1978. The stay granted by this Court continued for three days during which time he could not do his business. He was deprived of his legal right to do abkari business of selling liquor for those three days by an order of this Court. The petitioner could get the interim order obtained by Suryanarayana vacated only on 3rd October, 1978. Thereafter the petitioner commenced his business and had run his lease for the Anakapalli group of Arrack shops only for the balance of the contracted period which was short by three days. This gave rise to a dispute between the petitioner and the Excise authorities. The petitioner claimed that he was entitled to proportionate remission of the rentals payable by him to the Excise authorities. The Excise authorities were demanding full rentals for the whole year including for those three days. It was under these circumstances the present writ petition had been filed by the petitioner. The petitioner's case was that he agreed to pay the rentals on the basis of one-year lease. As he was prevented from doing business for the full period, because of the order of this Court the petitioner claimed remission in rentals. The petitioner, therefore, argued that the State should compensate him for the loss to which he was put to by, the State by granting him proportionate remission. This claim was disputed by the Excise authorities.