Judgment : 1. The writ petition is for the issue of a writ of prohibition restraining the respondent from taking any further steps for collection of the alleged arrears of kist by the deceased mother of the petitioner in respect of arrack shop No.6 Karur Taluk, for the excise year 1982-83. 2. It is stated in the affidavit in support of the writ petitioner as follows:- The petitioners mother Chellammal was a licensee for an arrack shop No.6 Karur Taluk, for the Excise year 1982-83 and in respect of which, a sum of Rs.3,14,075 seemed to be the arrears as evident from a communication received from the respondent dated 23. 1988. This communication was served on the petitioner on 24. 1988. The petitioners mother Chellammal died on 4. 1986. The petitioner sent a letter to the respondent on 5. 1988. This was followed by further two letters from his Advocate on 16. 1988 and 27. 1988. He also gave a statement to the respondent in August, 1988 stating that on the death of his mother, no property of hers passed on to him. At the time of the filing of the writ petition, the petitioner did not possess any property of his mother which had passed into his hands on her death. The respondent was taking steps under the Revenue Recovery Act, 1864 to collect the alleged arrears due by the petitioners mother towards the kist as mentioned earlier from assets for which there was no authority of law. According to the petitioner, only a regular suit should be filed for recovery of the alleged arrears. The petitioner having received the notice under the Revenue Recovery Act, has filed the present writ petition. 3. The respondent has filed a counter denying the allegations in the affidavit in support of the writ petition. It is stated in the counter as follows: The writ petitioners mother was the successful bidder in respect of A.S.No.6/81-82 for the Excise year 1981-82 held on 25. 1981 and it was confirmed in her favour for a monthly rental of Rs.36,950. Licence was also issued to her. Since she failed to remit the kist for the months from August, 1981, the arrack shop was brought to resale under Rule 20 of the Tamil Nadu Arrack (Retail Shop) Rules, 1981. In the reauction, there were no bidders. The shop was closed. Licence was also issued to her. Since she failed to remit the kist for the months from August, 1981, the arrack shop was brought to resale under Rule 20 of the Tamil Nadu Arrack (Retail Shop) Rules, 1981. In the reauction, there were no bidders. The shop was closed. Due to closure of the shop, the Government had incurred loss of revenue to Rs.3,14,075. The original bidder Chellammal died on 4. 1986, leaving behind the writ petitioner and her daughter by name Indirani. Chellammal had furnished a solvency certificate for her properties. Her house in door No.36 of Sengunthapuram for arrack shop No.6/81-82, the terraced building and tiled house in door Nos.36 to 38 situate in T.S.No.200/4 of L.N.Samudram Village in Karur Taluk related to Chellammal. Under gift deed No.3254 of 1981 dated 25. 1981, she had settled the properties on her then minor son the petitioner herein represented by guardian sister Indirani. After the death of Chellammal, Form No.II notice under the Revenue Recovery Act to recover the notional loss sustained by the State was served on her legal heir namely, the writ petitioner. He was informed that the State proposed to recover the amount from him under the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act. He was also informed that if no representation was received within seven days from the date of receipt of the notice, action would be pursued to recover the amount from him. He had not remitted the amount. The only property included in the solvency certificate produced by Chellammal, having been settled on the writ petitioner, was liable for attachment and sale for recovery of the notional loss. There was no need to file a separate suit for recovery of the amount. Rule 21 of the Tamil Nadu Arrack Shops (Disposal in Auction) Rules, 1981 empowers the Excise Authorities to invoke the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act for the collection of notional loss. The writ petitioner being the beneficiary, out of the grant of the privilege of selling the arrack in retail in A.S.No.6/81-82 was liable to discharge the obligation of his mother. The writ petitioner had also not disputed either the liability or the quantum. 4. The writ petitioner being the beneficiary, out of the grant of the privilege of selling the arrack in retail in A.S.No.6/81-82 was liable to discharge the obligation of his mother. The writ petitioner had also not disputed either the liability or the quantum. 4. Admittedly, the writ petitioner is the only son of the deceased Chellammal the licensee in respect of the arrack shop No.6/81-28 Karur Taluk, the property shown in the solvency certificate was the only property belonging to Chellammal the licensee and she had also executed a settlement deed on 25. 1981. The liability to pay the amount cannot be disputed. It is a matter of record that during the life time of Chellammal, notices were issued to her claiming the notional loss. She had an opportunity to dispute the amount before the Authorities. She did not choose to do so. After her death, the writ petitioner as her son and as the beneficiary, was served with notice under the Revenue Recovery Act. 5. It is contended by learned counsel for the writ petitioner that before issuing proceedings under the Revenue Recovery Act, the writ petitioner ought to have been served with notice of demand giving an opportunity to him to dispute the quatum. In my view, such a contention is not open to the writ petitioner particularly when his mother had been called upon to settle the claim even during her life time and it is not possible for the Department to start everything all over gain. It is perfectly in order that they started from where they left at the time of the original licensee, namely Chellammal. 6. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner brought to my notice, the following decisions of this Court: (1) The National Engineering Co., Ltd. Madras v. The Tahsildar, Fort, Tondiarpet Taluk, Madras and other, 1990 (2) MLJ 25 ; (2) Vellappan Nair, N. v. The District Collector of Kanyakumai District and another, 1992 WLR 321; (3) The District Collector, Kanyakumai District v. N. Vellappan Nair, 1992 (1) LW80. 7. In my view, the above decision in The National Engineering Co., Ltd. Madras v. The Tahsildar, Fort, Tondiarpet Taluk, Madras and others, 1990 (2) MLJ 25 , will not apply to the facts of the present case. 7. In my view, the above decision in The National Engineering Co., Ltd. Madras v. The Tahsildar, Fort, Tondiarpet Taluk, Madras and others, 1990 (2) MLJ 25 , will not apply to the facts of the present case. It has been held by the Supreme Court in A. Damodaran v. State of Kerala and others, 1976 (3) SCC 61 : AIR 1976 SC 1533 that in matters arising under the Abkari Act, it is not necessary that there should be a written agreement between the parties. The very fact that the Government has accepted the bid of the individual and had granted licence for selling arrack, could be sufficient to create a valid agreement between the parties. 8. The second decision Vellappan Nairs Case, 1992 WLR 321 relied on by learned counsel for the decision in the appeal is the third decision. Before the Appellate Authority, it was contended by the licensee in that case that he was not heard before the impugned demand came to be raised. The Bench afforded an opportunity to make his say on the question and quashed the proceeding directing a fresh consideration of the matter by the appropriate Authority. This decision also will not in any way help the writ petitioner because I have already found that his mother was afforded an opportunity to state her objections with regard to the demand for notional loss incurred by the Department. 9. In these circumstances, there are no merits in the writ petition. The writ petition is therefore dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. 10. In view of the disposal of the main writ petition, petition in W.M.P.No.22940 of 1988 is dismissed.