JUDGMENT : 1. These two intra-court appeals involving identical issue are heard together and being disposed of by this common order. 2. The Special Appeal No. 40/2019 is directed against the order dated 09.07.2018 passed by learned Single Judge of this court in SBCWP No. 7103/2016, whereby the appellants are directed to refund the application fees deposited by the respondent-writ petitioner for issuance of the licence to operate retail shop of country made liquor. 3. The Special Appeal No. 213/2018 is directed against the order dated 12.12.2018 passed by learned Single Judge in SBCWP No. 7418/2016, which stands allowed in light of order dated 09.07.2018 passed in SBCWP No. 7103/2016. 4. The appeal (SAW No. 40/19) is reported to be barred by limitation for 22 days. It is accompanied by an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay. 5. The application is not opposed by the counsel appearing for the respondent. Accordingly, the application is allowed. The delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 6. Precisely, the case set out by the respondents-writ petitioners was that though they had deposited the application fee for making an application for grant of licence to operate shop of country made liquor but after depositing the fee, they did not make an application for the same and thus, in absence of any application made by them for grant of the licence, the amount of application fee could not have been forfeited by the appellants herein. 7. The learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petitions preferred by the writ-petitioners observing that since no application was ever filed by the writ-petitioners in the prescribed proforma or otherwise in continuity with the deposit of application fee, no charge is created thereupon and the department is under an obligation to refund the money held in trust. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants contended that in terms of the Condition No. 3.3 of the Conditions for grant of licence of country made liquor, the application fee deposited was non-refundable and therefore, the application fee once deposited is not liable to be refunded. However, it is not disputed by the learned counsel that though the application fee was deposited by the writ-petitioners, no application was made by them for grant of licence of country made liquor. 9. However, it is not disputed by the learned counsel that though the application fee was deposited by the writ-petitioners, no application was made by them for grant of licence of country made liquor. 9. It is true that under Condition No. 3.3, the application fee to be deposited by the applicants is non-refundable and thus, the person aspirant of grant of licence of country made liquor making an application for the same is not entitled for the refund. But then, the forfeiture of application fee in terms of Condition No. 3.3 presupposes an existence of the application for the grant of licence for country made liquor. Admittedly, the writ-petitioners had not made any application for the grant of licence and they never participated in the allotment process of the licence to operate the shop of country made liquor and thus, the application fee deposited by them though voluntarily, cannot be retained by the appellant. 10. In this view of the matter, the learned Single Judge has committed no error in allowing the writ petitions in the terms indicated above. 11. No case for interference by us in intra-court appeal jurisdiction is made out. 12. Accordingly, the intra-court appeals are dismissed. No order as to costs.