JUDGMENT (Per D.S.R.Varma, J.) Heard the teamed Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise, appearing for the appellants in both the Writ Appeals as well respondents in the Writ Petitions, as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondents In both the Writ Appeals as well as petitioners in the remaining three writ petitions. 2. Since the issue involved and the parties being same, with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants as well as the learned counsel appearing for the appellants as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondent, all the matters are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment. 3. Writ Appeal No 1752 of 2003 is directed against the common order, dated 23-04-2003, allowing the writ petition W.P.No.24191 of 2002, filed by the licencee, seeking to declare the Memo NO.1995/Ex.III-2/2001-2, dated 12-04-2001, issued by the first respondent therein, and the consequential action of the third respondent therein in rejecting the claim of the petitioner therein for refund of the rentals and licence fee for the period from 17-05-1998 to 31-03-1999, during which period the petitioner could not conduct the business by an order Rc.N0765/2000/B5, dated 28-05-2002, as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction. 4. Writ Appeal NO.1849 of 2003 is directed against the common order, dated 23-04-2003, allowing the writ petition WP.No.25429 of 2002, filed by the licencee, seeking to declare the action of the respondents in withholding the refund of the proportionate licence fee for the period commencing from 16-04-1998 to 25-06-1998 during the closure of the business of the petitioner therein on account of illegal cancellation of the licence held by the petitioner therein as illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to refund the proportionate licence fee for the said period forthwith. 5. The prayer in all the three writ petitions i.e., W.PNos.7975 of 2003,10911 of 2003 and 6696 of 2004 is as follows:- “..... 5. The prayer in all the three writ petitions i.e., W.PNos.7975 of 2003,10911 of 2003 and 6696 of 2004 is as follows:- “..... to issue writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction declaring the Memo No.1995/Ex.III-2/ 2001-2, dated 12-04-2001, issued by the 1" respondent and the consequential action of the 3" respondent in rejecting the claim of the petitioners for refund of the licence fee for the period during which the petitioners could not conduct the business by an order RC.No.103/ 2002/B3, dated 10-12-2002, as illegal, arbitrary and without Jurisdiction and pass such other or further orders as the Hon'ble Court fees deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case." 6. The appellants in both the Writ Appeals and the respondents in the other three Writ petitions are officials of State while the respondents in the Writ Appeals and the petitioners m the said three writ petitions are the licence holders. 7. For the sake of convenience, in this common Judgment, the parties will be referred to as per their array In the Writ petitions. 8. The question involved in all the petitions is - as to whether the appellants were at an obligation to refund the licence fee proportionately for the period for which the licence was suspended on account of some alleged irregularities under law, committed by the respondents? 9. The facts, in brief, are that the writ petitioners were IL licencees for the excise year 1998-1999. During the subsistence of said licences, on the ground that there were some irregularities, the licences were initially suspended pending enquiry and cancellation had ensued pursuant to an enquiry conducted. Challenging the said action, the writ petitioners had taken the matter in appeal to the competent authority and when the appeal was dismissed, the same was carried by way of revision to the Government The Government, while allowing the revision, set aside the orders of cancellation of the licences. Therefore, It was the contention of the Writ petitioners that since the cancellation orders were set aside, as a corollary, the licences would get restored from the day on which they were subjected to suspension and as a sequel to that the writ petitioners were entitled to refund of the licence fee proportionately. Therefore, It was the contention of the Writ petitioners that since the cancellation orders were set aside, as a corollary, the licences would get restored from the day on which they were subjected to suspension and as a sequel to that the writ petitioners were entitled to refund of the licence fee proportionately. Since the said request was not acceded to by the respondents, the present writ petitions came to be filed and the learned single Judge of this Court, having agreed with the contention of the writ petitioners, allowed the writ petition W.P. Nos. 24191 of 2002 and 25429 of 2002 and granted the relief as sought for by the writ petitioners. Hence, the present Writ Appeals by the respondents. 10. During the course of hearing of the matters, it has been brought to the notice of this Court about a judgment rendered by a Full Bench of this Court in W.P.No.15904 of 1994, dated 17-03-2005 (unreported), to which one of us (D.S.R.Varma, J) was a party. 11. Before the said Full Bench, a similar question had arisen for consideration, of course, with slight variation of the facts, but, nevertheless, with regard to the refund of the licence fee proportionately for the period of suspension of licence. The Full Bench, while dealing with the subject, before it, had taken into account the Judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in Suresh Gaud v. Collector, Mahaboobnagar 1979 (2) APLJ Short Notes 8, and the judgment of a Full Bench of this Court in Sri Naraslmha Wines v. Prohibition and Excise Superintendent 2001 (6) ALT 240 (F.B), and also had taken into consideration the relevant rules and the provisions under the Excise laws. 12. The Full Bench, in W.P.No.15904 of 1994, had taken the view that the grant of licence was a matter of contract between the Government and the party and no public law was involved and, therefore, Rule 25(9) was not ultra vires and no writ of mandamus could be issued directing the authorities to grant remission for the period during which no business was carried on. 13. 13. Further, the said Full Bench, in W.P.No.15904 of 1994, had also taken into account the scope of sub-rule (9) of Rule 25, which postulates that the licencee has to pay the licence tee for a lease year before the commencement of lease year to which it relates in one lump sum or in three (3) equal installments. Therefore, the licencing authority has an unfettered power to collect the licence fee before hand and it has been made abundantly clear in Section 31(3) of the Excise Act. 1968, wherein it was specifically prohibited that the licencee shall have no right to claim damages or compensation in case of suspension or cancellation of licence. 14. The only exception is under Rule 23 of the Rules 1 993, wherein proportionate refund of the licence fee was provided in case of curfew Imposed by the competent authority for a period of 3 days or more considerably, otherwise, the law is very clear to the defect that the licensee had no vested right to have the refund of licence fee proportionately when once cancellation of licence was set aside. 15 In view of the law laid down by the abovementioned two Full Benches of this Court In Mis. SL V. Wines v. State of A.P., and others (unreported judgment) and Sri Narasimha Wines case (2 supra), we cannot take a different view inasmuch as, the facts and circumstances of the present case do squarely fall under the parameters of the law laid down by the said two Full Bench of this Court. 16. However, the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners tries to contend that there are some factual distinctions in the cases decided by the Full Bench of this Court in M/s. S.L.V. Wines v. State at A.P., and others (unreported judgment) and the Judgment of another Full Bench of this Court in Sri Narasimha Wines case (2 supra). 17. In our considered view, this contention cannot be accepted. The principle laid down In the decisions referred to above both the Full Benches of this Court is the same and may be the facts vary slightly. However, notwithstanding the manner of variation in the factual position, in our view, the same is not capable of altering the illegal (sic. Legal) proposition laid down by the above judgments rendered by two Full Benches of this Court. 18. However, notwithstanding the manner of variation in the factual position, in our view, the same is not capable of altering the illegal (sic. Legal) proposition laid down by the above judgments rendered by two Full Benches of this Court. 18. Accordingly, we hold that the cases of all the writ petitions is squarely covered by the Judgments, referred to above, rendered by two Full Benches of this Court. 19. For the foregoing, the present Writ Appeals are liable to be allowed, setting aside the impugned common order, passed by the learned single judge of this Court. 20. In the result, both the Writ Appeals W.A. No. 1752 of 2003 and W.A. No. 1849 of 2003 are allowed, setting aside the Impugned common order, dated 23-04-2003. passed by the learned single Judge of this Court. However, there shall be no order as to costs. 21. In view of the allowing of the Writ Appeals and the reasons mentioned therein. all the remaining three writ petitions I.e., W.P.Nos.7975 of 2003,10911 of 2003 and 6696 of 2004 are liable to be dismissed. 22. In the result, W.P. Nos. 7975 of 2003, 10911 of 2003 and 6696 of 2004 are dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.