ORAL JUDGMENT (PER - P.V. HARDAS, J.):- 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties this Petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. In fact, this Court by its order dated 9.10.2006 had put the parties on notice as issue involved in the present Petition has been already adjudicated in a judgment reported in 2000 (2) All MR 4, this Petition would be heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. By this Petition the Petitioner is praying for issuance of a writ holding and declaring that the demand and recovery of Rs. 1,75,000/- by the Respondent for transfer of CL III licence standing in the name of his father to the name of the Petitioner is illegal arbitrary and ultra vires the powers under Rule 5 of the Bombay Prohibition (Privilege Fees) Rules, 1954. The Petitioner has also prayed for directing to refund the amount of Rs. 1,75,000/- alongwith interest @ 24% p.a. from the date of deposit till its realisation. 3. The facts in the present Petition can broadly be classified as under:- The father of the Petitioner was holder of CL III liquor licence at Raja Bazar, Aurangabad District. Father of the Petitioner, i.e. the holder of the licence, died on 6.2.2002 at Aurangabad. The Petitioner thereafter applied for transposition of his name in the aforesaid CL III liquor licence as the Petitioner was the sole legal representative of the deceased Gokullal S/o Bandulal Jaiswal. The third Respondent informed the Petitioner that the Petitioner would be required to pay an amount of Rs. 1,75,000/- for transposition of his name in place of the name of his deceased father. The aforesaid communication is dated 7.3.2003. Upon receipt of the said communication, the Petitioner remonstrated the demand of the Respondents for deposit of the aforesaid amount, however, it appears that ultimately the Petitioner deposited the aforesaid amount and the name of the Petitioner came to be transposed in the place of name of his deceased father. 4. Ms. Netrali Jain learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner has invited our attention to the judgment of the learned Single Judge in Sylvia Leo Carvgalho V. The Collector of Mumbai and Anr. reported in 2000 (2) All MR 4. This is precisely the question which has been posed before the learned Single Judge. 4. Ms. Netrali Jain learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner has invited our attention to the judgment of the learned Single Judge in Sylvia Leo Carvgalho V. The Collector of Mumbai and Anr. reported in 2000 (2) All MR 4. This is precisely the question which has been posed before the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge while construing Rule 5 came to the conclusion that the aforesaid rule would not apply to the transposition of name of legal representative or heir of a deceased licensee and no fees could be demanded for transposition of name of heirs of deceased licensee for the period of licence. The aforesaid judgment of the learned Single Judge was followed by the Division Bench of this Court dated 27.1.2003, in Writ Petition No. 3171 of 2002. The Division Bench came to the conclusion that the transposition of the name of the Petitioner in place of the deceased licensee was not a transfer as contemplated in the Rule 5 of the Bombay Prohibition (Privilege Fees) Rules, 1954 and therefore the demand of privilege fee from the Petitioner herein to the tune of Rs. 1,75,000/- was ex-facie illegal. 5. Since the controversy in the present Petition stands already concluded in view of the judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge (supra) and the order passed by the Division Bench (supra), according to us the Petition deserves to be allowed. 6. Accordingly this Petition is allowed and Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (B) to the Petition. We direct respondents to refund an amount of Rs. 1,75,000/- within a period of ten weeks from today. In the event the Respondents do not refund the aforesaid amount to the Petitioner within ten weeks, the Respondents shall be liable to pay interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of this decision till the actual payment of the said amount by the Respondents to the Petitioner. Rule is thus made absolute on the terms indicated above with no order as to costs Petition Alliowed.