Judgment :- 1. The petitioner was the successful bidder in respect of arrack shop No. 8, Ganapathi Agraharam of Papanasam taluk for the excise year 1984-1985. For a change, this is a case where the Government is at fault. The petitioner had deposited a sum of Rs. 5,000/- as solvency amount and a further sum of Rs. 320/- towards solvency. The petitioner had been regular in payment of the kist and the excise year is over. It is stated that towards the payment of kist amount, by some mistake, the petitioner had paid an excess amount of Rs. 4490.50. There is no dispute about this excess payment as will be seen from the proceedings of the respondents themselves dated 19.12.1986. The said proceedings contains a tabular statement about the payments made by the petitioner, and at the end it is shown that a sum of Rs. 4490.50 was paid in excess by the petitioner. Therefore, at the end of the excise year, the petitioner demanded the refund of excess amount along with the sum of Rs. 5,320/- deposited by him towards solvency. After several letters of demand, the petitioner caused a lawyers notice to be issued on 4.8.1988 demanding the payment of Rs. 9,810.50, threatening to take legal action in default of payment. Hence, this writ petition seeking to issue the writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to refund the said sum of Rs. 9,810.50 with interest at 18% per annum. 2. Though no counter-affidavit has been filed, there is a reply by the Collector on 5.9.1989 to the lawyers notice dated 13.1.1989. It is only stated that the matter has been referred to the Commissioner, Prohibition and Excise Department, Madras since the matter relates to the excise year 1984-1985. It is also stated that the refund can be made only after approval of the revised Special Rules which are pending with the Government. 3. However, the learned Government Advocate, on the basis of the written instructions states that the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Madras had directed the Assistant Commissioner to revise the remission account of the petitioner. It is therefore stated by the learned Government Advocate that till the approval of the Commissioner the exact amount cannot be quantified. This stand of the respondents is totally unjustified. When the Tahsildar has admitted the excess amount to the tune of Rs. 4,490.50, the present stand is unacceptable. It is therefore stated by the learned Government Advocate that till the approval of the Commissioner the exact amount cannot be quantified. This stand of the respondents is totally unjustified. When the Tahsildar has admitted the excess amount to the tune of Rs. 4,490.50, the present stand is unacceptable. The deposits made by the petitioner towards solvency amount is also not disputed. Therefore, the respondents cannot delay or deny the payment to the petitioner on any account. The excuses now given on behalf of the respondents are too flimsy to be accepted. When the amount is due to the government, the authorities are quick to pounce upon the defaulter using all the powers of the Government under the Revenue Recovery Act and they even to proceed to distrain the movable properties. While so, I do not see why any indulgence should be given to the respondents. I, therefore, have no hesitation in giving direction to refund the amount due to the petitioner. Consequently, there will be a direction to the respondents to refund the sum of Rs. 9,810.50 with interest at 18 (eighteen) per cent per annum from the date of the lawyers notice, i.e. 4.8.1988, till realisation. The writ petition is allowed with costs. Counsels fee is Rs. 1,000/- (Rs. One thousand).