ORDER
V.V.S. Rao, J.
1. These two writ petitions are filed by the Toddy Tappers Co-operative Societies. The licences issued to the petitioners-societies were suspended by the competent authority, pending further enquiry into the allegation that the petitioners adulterated toddy that was being sold in their shops. However, after obtaining the chemical analysis report of the second sample bottle, the licensing authority issued proceedings revoking the suspension order. Therefore, the petitioners approached the authority for granting remission of the monthly rentals for the period during which the licences were suspended, in vain. Therefore, they filed the present writ petitions seeking a direction to the respondent to grant remission for the period during which their shops were not allowed to be operated due to suspension orders.
2. Learned Counsel for the petitioners placed strong reliance on the judgment of the learned Single Judge rendered by my learned brother Justice V. Eswaraiah, in Kallam Subba Reddy v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, . In the said judgment his Lordship took a view that if the order of suspension is subsequently declared illegal and the authorities rectified the mistake, the licensee is entitled for refund/remission of the licence fee. Relevant observations made by his Lordship are as under:
…In the instant case, no doubt, there is no such order of closure under Section 20 but the suspension order was found to be illegal by the licensing authority himself and revoked the suspension order. As the ground on which the suspension was made is subsequently found as incorrect, and therefore, it cannot be said that the suspension order is legal. As per the Scheme of the Act and the Rules made thereunder, the licenses are granted for a period of 12 months on the payment of fixed amount of the rental and the licence fee relatable for the 12 months and if the licensing authority prevents the licensees from carrying on their business by reason of illegal suspension, suspending the privilege granted in favour of the individual to carry on the business and that privilege is restored by revoking the suspension orders, the licensee are entitled for the refund of the rental as well as the licence fee for the period during which the shops were remain closed on account of illegal suspension of the privilege granted in favour of the licensees.
14. Admittedly, there is no fault on the part of the licensees causing for the suspension of the licences but the suspension of licences were made purely on the fault committed by the Excise Authorities. For the fault of the Department, the licensees cannot be penalized. The authorities rectified their mistake and restored the licences but denied to grant the proportionate amounts payable for the suspension period, and therefore, I hold that the action of the respondents in refusing to grant remission of rentals and licence fee is illegal and contrary to Rule 33 of the Rules, 1993.
3. These writ petitions are vehemently opposed by the learned Government Pleader contending that there is no provision in the A.P. Excise Act, 1968 (for short ‘the Act’) or the A.P. Excise (Arrack and Toddy Licences General Conditions) Rules, 1969 or the A.P. Excise (Tapping of Trees and Toddy shops-Special Conditions of Licence) Rules, 1969. She also placed reliance on the unreported judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in W.P. No. 15904 of 1994, dated 17.3.2005 in S.L.V. Wines v. State of A.P.
4. With the assistance of the learned Counsel for the petitioners, this Court has gone through the relevant provisions of the Act. Except Section 20 of the Act, there is no other provision under which a licensee can claim remission or refund of licence fee. Further Section 31 of the Act, which deals with the power of the Excise authorities to cancel or suspend licence, in Sub-section (3) provides that the holder of a licence shall not be entitled to any compensation on its cancellation or suspension or to the refund of any fee paid to the Government. Therefore, the judgment of this Court in Kallam Subba Reddy’s case (supra) cannot be treated as a binding precedent.
5. In S.L.V. Wines’s case (Supra) the Full Bench considered the question whether the licensee is entitled to any remission for the period during which the licensed premises was suspended. The question was answered in the negative, holding that no licensee can claim remission when the shop is closed during the period of suspension. After referring to the provisions of Section 31(3) and following the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in Sri Narasimha Wines v. Prohibition and Excise Superintendent, (FB), to which I was a member, the writ petition for remission was dismissed. The following relevant observations are apt and require to be extracted.
A bare perusal of the above provisions shows that the licensee whose licence has either been cancelled or suspended is not entitled to any compensation nor to the refund of any fee paid or deposit made in respect of the licence, which constitutes the excise revenue to the State…
Adverting to Sub-rule (9) of Rule 25 of the Rules, 1970, a Full Bench of this Court in Sri Narasimha Wines case (supra) held in Para 24 thus:
“The matter relating to remission has been provided for by the State in exercise of its rule making power itself, which can neither be said to be unjust or arbitrary, no writ of, or in the nature of, mandamus can be issued directing the respondents to grant remission for the period during which no business was carried on.”
The Full Bench judgment, in our considered view, squarely covers the situation obtaining in this writ petition. In view of the authoritative pronouncement made by a co-equal Bench of this Court in Sri Narasimha Wines case (supra), no writ of mandamus can be issued directing the State Government to grant remission. The said judgment of this Court has not been placed before either of the Division Benches of this Court. Therefore, we have no doubt in our minds that the petitioner is not entitled to any remission as claimed by him.
6. In view of the decision of the Full Bench in S.L.V. Wines v. State of A.P. (supra), the decision of the learned Single Judge in Kallam Subba Reddy’s case (supra) is of no assistance to the petitioners, as the same cannot be treated as precedent any more. The writ petitions are devoid of merits and are accordingly dismissed with costs.