JUDGMENT : V.N. Khare, J. The appellants herein are the manufacturer of potable grade alcohol. One of the raw materials required for the manufacture of alcohol is molasses. The appellants purchased molasses from different sugar mills located in different parts of the State of Uttar Pradesh during the years 1974-1975, 1975-1976 and 1976-1977. 2. The State of U.P. has framed the rules known as the Uttar Pradesh Sheera Niyantran Niyamawali, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules") under the provisions of the U.P. Sheera Niyantran Adhiniyam, 1964. Rule 23 of the Rules empowered the State Government to levy administrative charges exclusive of the price payable to a sugar factory on the molasses released for sale by the controllers towards meeting the cost of establishment for supervision and control over molasses at such rates as may be notified from time to time. Under sub-rule (2) of Rule 23 of the Rules, every occupier of sugar factory is required to deposit the amount of administrative charges payable on molasses released for sale. The Rule shows that levy of administrative charges was on the sale of molasses payable by the sugar factories. 3. It appears that the appellants paid the administrative charges to the sugar factories. Subsequently, the said levy of administrative charges was struck down by the High Court of Allahabad. After the said levy was struck down the appellant filed writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution before the Allahabad High Court for issue of writ of mandamus directing the State Government to refund the administrative charges realised from them. The High Court was of the view that the appellants are at the most entitled to claim refund of the administrative charges from the sugar factories by means of an appropriate remedy available to them in law. In that view of the matter, a the writ petitions were dismissed. It is against the said decision the appellants have preferred these appeals. 4. We have looked into the matter and find that the appellants have not paid administrative charges directly to the State Government. Under the Rules the liability of payment of administrative charges is on the sugar factories. Under such circumstances, the appellants cannot claim refund of b administrative charges from the State Government. It is open to the appellants to claim refund of levy if paid by them from the sugar factories in accordance with law. 5. Under the Rules the liability of payment of administrative charges is on the sugar factories. Under such circumstances, the appellants cannot claim refund of b administrative charges from the State Government. It is open to the appellants to claim refund of levy if paid by them from the sugar factories in accordance with law. 5. In this view of the matter, we do not find any merit in these appeals. 6. The appeals fail and are, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as costs. Appeal dismissed.