Judgment :- 1. This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner calling for the records relating to proceedings in Na.Ka.A.No.485/04 on the file of the first respondent, dated 19.10.2007, and quash the same. 2. The petitioner is the successful bidder to conduct Shop No.21, for vending country spirit in Periyavadalur Village, Trichy District. He was issued with licence for the period from 16.07.1981 to 15.07.1982 by the proceedings of the District Collector, in Na.Ka.No.2-75771/1981, dated 03.06.1981. Due to the ill-health, he was unable to conduct the shop within the said period. Therefore, the respondent re-auctioned the shop and the third party took the shop on licence and conducted the shop. The petitioner have not paid licence fee for 4-1/2 months and therefore, his licence was cancelled. The second respondent by notice, dated 08.02.2002, called upon the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.1,09,500/-, being the loss for non-performance by him. The petitioner has paid that amount in installments. 3. While so, the first respondent by the impugned order, dated 19.10.2007, called upon the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.3,41,640/-, being the interest @ 12% p.a. based on G.O.No.81, Prohibition and Excise (II) Department, dated 05.04.2004. 4. The petitioner has challenged the said demand in the present writ petition on the ground that the licence was cancelled as early as on 08.02.2002. The respondents have no power either under the Prohibition Act or under the Tamil Nadu Liquor (Licence and Permit) Rules 1981 or under the Tamil Nadu Revenue Recovery Act to impose interest for the penalty imposed. The unilateral claim of the first respondent without giving an opportunity to the petitioner, is in violation of principles of natural justice. The first respondent has no power to impose interest for the demands relating to the year 1982, in the year 2004. Pending writ petition, the petitioner died and the legal representatives of the petitioner were brought on record as petitioners 2 to 7. 5. The third respondent has filed counter affidavit denying the various averments made by the petitioner. The third respondent has stated that the petitioner has filed W.P.No.2669 of 1986 challenging the demand of notional loss to the tune of Rs.1,09,500/-. This Court, by order dated 17.02.1993, directed the respondents to recover the amount in accordance with law by having recourse of the procedure under the Revenue Recovery Act. The third respondent has stated that the petitioner has filed W.P.No.2669 of 1986 challenging the demand of notional loss to the tune of Rs.1,09,500/-. This Court, by order dated 17.02.1993, directed the respondents to recover the amount in accordance with law by having recourse of the procedure under the Revenue Recovery Act. The petitioner has paid the entire amount of notional loss to the tune of Rs.1,09,500/- in installments from 03.06.2004 to 27.02.2007. The first respondent issued notice to the petitioner demanding 12% interest on notional loss remitted to the tune of Rs.3,41,640/- as per the notification given in G.O.No.81, Prohibition and Excise (II) Department, dated 05.04.2004. By the said Government Order, the Government fixed the rate of interest at 12% on an amount due to the State Government, which were belatedly remitted. The said Government Order deemed to have come into force from 12.05.1981. The petitioner was a successful bidder to conduct shop No.21, for vending country spirit in the year 1981-1982, but he has paid the amount only on 03.06.2004 after a gab of 22 years. 6. Heard Mr. M.P.Senthil, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. M.Murugan, learned Government Advocate for the respondents. 7. From the records, it is seen that the second respondent called upon the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.1,09,500/-, being the loss caused by him. The petitioner has paid the said amount in installments, as directed by the second respondent. Subsequently, the Government has passed G.O.No.81, Prohibition and Excise (II) Department, dated 05.04.2004, whereby the interest at 12% is directed to be collected on the amount of loss caused by the licensees. Based on the said Government Order, the first respondent has called upon the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.3,41,640/-, being the interest payable by him. In the said order, no particulars were furnished as to how the said amount was arrived at by the first respondent. No notice was given to the petitioner before passing the impugned order. After the petitioner has paid the entire loss caused by him, as quantified by the second respondent, the first respondent is not entitled to call upon the petitioner to pay interest for the loss caused by him, as quantified by the second respondent. No notice was given to the petitioner before passing the impugned order. After the petitioner has paid the entire loss caused by him, as quantified by the second respondent, the first respondent is not entitled to call upon the petitioner to pay interest for the loss caused by him, as quantified by the second respondent. The first respondent has no right to call upon the petitioner to pay interest at 12% for the loss caused by him in the year 1982, by the impugned order, dated 19.10.2007, after 25 years of alleged loss caused by the petitioner. 8. For the reasons stated above, the impugned order of the first respondent, dated 19.10.2007, is liable to be set aside and the same is accordingly, set aside. 9. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.