ORDER
The Court
1. Short point involved in this writ petition is whether a transferee of a licence is entitled to claim any amount deposited by the earlier licensee.
2. One H.R. Mariholakar was CL-2 licensee and he had continued his business from the excise year 1990-91. However, he made an application for grant of licence for the excise year 1998-99. As per IMFL Rules, said
Mariholakar has deposited the licence fee in advance along with the application for licence. Licence was not granted for the said year. Therefore, he has not done any business in respect of the excise year 1998-99. For the subsequent year licence was granted in favour of Mariholakar and the same has been transferred in favour of the present petitioner M.L. Lingaraj. Present petitioner who is a transferee of a licence of Mariholakar demanded the respondents to refund the amount deposited by Mariholakar. The same was not considered and therefore the present petition is filed requesting this Court to issue a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to refund an amount of Rs. 2,85,000/-. Petition is contested by the respondents.
3. According to the learned Government Pleader, the petitioner is not entitled for the relief since an amount of Rs. 2,85,000/- was deposited by Mariholakar and that under Rule 11 of IMFL Rules, if the licence has not been granted, the amount has to be refunded in favour of the person who deposited the amount. Since the present petitioner had not deposited the amount, he cannot maintain the petition for mandamus.
4. Having heard the learned Advocates, the only point that arises for the consideration of this Court is whether the writ of mandamus can be issued directing the respondents to refund the amount in favour of the petitioner who is a transferee of excise licence. Admittedly petitioner has not deposited the amount. It is Mariholakar who deposited the amount along with his application and if the licence was not granted in his favour, the person who deposited the money is entitled for refund of the said amount as per Rule 11 of IMFL Rules which reads thus:
“The licence fee for all kinds of licences shall be paid in advance along with application for the licences. In case the licence is not granted the fee paid shall be refunded”.
In view of the fact that petitioner is not a depositor, is not entitled to claim the said amount. What is transferred in favour of the petitioner is only a licence and therefore application is required to be submitted pursuant to Rule 11 of IMFL Rules by the person who deposited the amount. It is not the case of the petitioner herein that he demanded the respondents as a power of attorney holder of Mariholakar and it is also not the case of the petitioner that Mariholakar has authorised the petitioner to collect the amount and that a request was made by Mariholakar to the respondents to refund the amount in favour of the petitioner. So, in the circumstances, writ of mandamus cannot be issued and the writ petition filed by the petitioner itself is not maintainable and that the authorities cannot be directed to refund the advance amount to the petitioner and rightly the respondents have rejected the claim of the petitioner. However, if the application is filed by Mariholakar, respondents are bound to consider his request if licence was not issued in his favour and that no business was run by Mariholakar for the relevant period.
5. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed.