P V Midhun Reddy vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh

Held

The Court directed the concerned authority to refund the refundable license fee of Rs. 19,00,000/- to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible, and not later than eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The Court noted that the petitioner had paid the amounts for the 2014-15 license, which was not renewed because the bar premises were located in a prohibited ward. The Court acknowledged the respondents' intention to release the amount within eight weeks and found no purpose in keeping the writ petition pending. While the petitioner sought refund of both license and application fees, the Court's specific direction was for the 'refundable license fee'. The issue of the application fee's refundability was not explicitly decided, but the direction focused on the license fee. The Court also referred to a similar case (W.P.No.8565 of 2023) where directions were given to either refund or adjust the amount, but adjustment was deemed not applicable here due to the business closure.

Facts

The petitioner, P V Midhun Reddy, filed a writ petition seeking the refund of Rs. 19,00,000/- paid as refundable license fee and Rs. 10,000/- as application fee for a Bar and Restaurant license under Form-2B. The petitioner had closed the business in 2014-15 as the premises were located in a prohibited ward, and the amount had not been refunded since then. The respondents, represented by the Assistant Government Pleader, stated that the petitioner had not approached the authorities for a refund and that the application fee was not refundable. They sought eight weeks to pay the license fee. The District Prohibition & Excise Officer's written instructions confirmed the payment for the 2014-15 license and the non-renewal due to the prohibited ward location.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a refund of the Rs. 19,00,000/- license fee and Rs. 10,000/- application fee, considering the business closure in 2014-15 due to the premises being in a prohibited ward. Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the Rs. 19,00,000/- was paid as a refundable license fee and Rs. 10,000/- as an application fee. Despite closing the business in 2014, the authorities have not refunded these amounts. The petitioner sought a direction for the timely release of these funds. Respondent's Contention: The respondents contended that the petitioner had not approached the authorities for the refund and that the application fee of Rs. 10,000/- was not eligible for refund. They requested eight weeks to process the payment of the license fee.