Judgment :- 1. The petitioner is the proprietor of a retail liquor shop run under the name and style of Mahe Wine Mart, at Pandakkal, Mahe Pondicherry State. He was having a valid licence issued by the Excise Department since 1971, to sell Indian and foreign liquor and his licence was periodically renewed upto 31st March 1975. On 6th March 1975, he applied to the Deputy Commissioner (Excise) at Mahe for renewal of his licence for the period 1st April 1975 to 31st March 1976. He also deposited the requisite licence fee of Rs. 5000 in the sub-treasury of Mahe. This request for renewal was rejected since it had been reported that he was in arrears of a sales tax in respect of an oil mill run by him and also that certain loan due to the Government had not been paid by him in his capacity as the proprietor of a Cattle Feed Manufacturing concern. Aggrieved by this order, an appeal was preferred by him to the Commissioner on 17th April 1975. But the appeal was not disposed of during the licensing period. Therefore, when the petitioner approached the Commissioner, he was said to have been advised to withdraw the appeal and seek for the renewal of the licence for the period 1976-1977. This made the petitioner to apply on 12th March 1976 for the grant of fresh licence or renewal for the period 1st April 1976 to 31st March 1977. In the application, he made a request that inasmuch as a sum of Rs. 5000 had already been deposited for the grant of licence for the period 1st April 1975 to 31st March 1976 as early as 6th March 1975, the said sum which was lying in deposit with the sub-treasury may be utilised as the fee for renewal of the licence for the period 1976-1977. On 7th July 1976, the impugned order was passed. It runs as follows: “With reference to the memorandum cited above subject. Thiru K.P. Kannan is informed that the default in not renewing the licence for the year 1975-1976 has been condoned. His IMFL retail licence will be renewed for the year 1976-1977 provided the required licence fee for the year 1976-1977 is paid by him and an undertaking is given by the licensee in a stamped paper of the value of Rs. His IMFL retail licence will be renewed for the year 1976-1977 provided the required licence fee for the year 1976-1977 is paid by him and an undertaking is given by the licensee in a stamped paper of the value of Rs. 2-50 to the effect that he will not claim reimbursement of the licence fees paid by him for the period 1975-1976. (Sd.) R. Raghuraman, Dy Commissioner (Excise) Mahe. It is under these circumstances, that the present writ petition has been preferred for the issue of a writ of certiorari or Mandamus to quash the above order and direct the grant of licence. 2. The learned counsel urges that if the default in not renewing the licence for the year 1975-1976 has been condoned, the petitioner would be entitled to the refund of Rs. 5000 paid towards licence fees, and therefore, the petitioner cannot be called upon to give an undertaking to the effect that he will not claim reimbursement of the licence fee paid by him for the year 1975-1976 and that the impugned order is thoroughly illegal and unsustainable in law. 3. The stand taken of the respondent is that an appeal is provided for under S. 60(2) of the Pondicherry Excise Act of 1970 and the petitioner should not have approached this court without exhausting that statutory remedy. 4. I may at once state that in this case, the rule of exhaustion need not be insisted upon for entertaining the writ petition. The impugned order, to say the least, manifests a very unreasonable attitude unworthy of an officer entrusted with the powers to issue licence. On what basis does the officer demand of the petitioner that he should not claim reimbursement is utterly incomprehensive. From the narration of the facts itself it would be clear that the authority (Deputy Commissioner) refused the licence for 1975-1976 because the petitioner was in arrears of salestex in respect of an oil mill run by him and certain loan was due from him as the proprietor of a Cattle Feed Manufacturing concern. But that order itself would be wholly unsustainable in law. Certainly merely because the petitioner is in arrears of sales tax or certain loan is due from him to the Government, the licence could not be refused. But that order itself would be wholly unsustainable in law. Certainly merely because the petitioner is in arrears of sales tax or certain loan is due from him to the Government, the licence could not be refused. Be that so, once the default in renewal of the licence for 1975-1976 is condoned, it means that the petitioner would be entitled to be paid back the licence fee of Rs. 5,000 remitted on 6th March 1975 along with his application for licence for 1975-1976. The requirement to give an undertaking is nothing but an official coercion. It amounts to clear abuse of authority. Therefore, I have no hesitation to quash the impugned order and it is accordingly quashed and the writ petition is allowed. 5. The lieensing authority will accept the sum of Rs. 5,000 paid on 6th March 1975 for the grant of licence for the year 1976-1977 and issue the licence as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, not later than 30th November 1976. The petitioner will be entitled to his costs counsels fee Rs. 150.