JUDGMENT : Arup Kumar Goswami, J. (Through Video Conferencing) Heard Mr. Kasa Jagan Mohan Reddy, learned Government Pleader representing the learned Advocate General, for the appellants and Mr. Sivaraju Srinivas, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 14.06.2018 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.4201 of 2018. 3. On the submission of the learned writ petitioner that the issue is squarely covered by the order dated 04.04.2018 in W.P.No.5680 of 2018, which was not disputed by the learned Government Pleader, the learned single Judge passed the order under challenge. 4. It is appropriate to quote the order in its entirety: “When the matter is taken up, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the issue in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the order, dated 04.04.2018, in W.P.No.5680 of 2018 of this Court and the same is not disputed by the learned Government Pleader. A copy of the said order is placed on record. Following the said order and for the reasons recorded therein, this writ petition is also allowed; the impugned proceedings dt.14.12.2017 of the 1st respondent is set aside; the sum of Rs.4.5 crores, which had been paid by the petitioner for obtaining LOI for establishment of new IMFL manufactory along with its application dt.23.04.2018, retained by the 1st respondent, is directed to be refunded to the petitioner with interest@9% per annum from the said date till the date of repayment. Office to enclose a copy of the order, dated 04.04.2018, in W.P.No.5680 of 2018 to this order. Miscellaneous Petitions pending consideration, if any, in this Writ petition shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs. 5. At the outset, it would be relevant to note that against the order dated 04.04.2018 in W.P.No.5680 of 2018, the State of Andhra Pradesh represented by the Special Chief Secretary, Revenue (Ex.II) Department, Secretariat Amaravathi, Andhra Pradesh preferred an appeal registered as W.A.No.1630 of 2018 and by an order dated 24.02.2021 passed by this Court, the Writ Appeal was dismissed. 6. The respondent/petitioner is a company incorporated for the purpose of manufacturing of Indian Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL)and started its operation and production on 14.08.1997. 7. 6. The respondent/petitioner is a company incorporated for the purpose of manufacturing of Indian Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL)and started its operation and production on 14.08.1997. 7. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, in exercise of powers conferred under Rule 4(2) of the A.P. Distillery (Manufacture of Indian Made Foreign Liquor other than Beer & Wine) Rules, 2006 (for brevity “the Rules”), issued a G.O.Ms.No.1 dated 01.01.2008 for grant of Letter of Intent (LOI) for expansion of the existing IMFL manufactories and invited applications from the existing manufactories. Pursuant thereto, the respondent/writ petitioner submitted application dated 23.04.2010 along with non-adjustable and non-refundable fees of Rs.3 Crores as well as special fee of Rs.1.50 Crores as specified by Rule 5(2)(b) of the Rules. 8. In the order of the learned single Judge, apparently the date of application of the petitioner is wrongly recorded as ‘23.04.2018’ as the respondent/petitioner had submitted his application only on ‘23.04.2010’. It is also wrongly recorded in the order that the petitioner had applied for obtaining LOI for establishment of new IMFL manufactory, though the petitioner had applied for expansion of the existing capacity of the respondent/petitioner’s manufactory. 9. It is stated that the Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue (Ex.III) Department, passed an order dated 17.12.2012 deciding not to sanction any further IMFL Distillery capacity addition at that point of time and, accordingly, taking recourse to Rule 5(2)(d) of the Rules, rejected all the applications including the application of the respondent/writ petitioner submitted in pursuance of the notification dated 01.01.2008. It is stated that the order dated 17.12.2012 was not within the knowledge of the respondent/writ petitioner and the respondent/writ petitioner came to know about the same only in the early part of 2017, while it was pursuing with the respondents for refund of the amounts paid to them. It is also stated that the second respondent was also apparently not aware of the order dated 17.12.2012 as he had submitted a report dated 17.09.2014 to the first respondent for taking necessary action on the representation, as there was no intent to grant LOI in view of the G.O.Ms.No.690 dated 19.12.2012, which was issued in exercise of powers conferred under Rule 4(3) of the Rules, withdrawing the intention of granting LOI for expansion of production capacities of the existing IMFL (other than Beer and Wine) manufactories. 10. 10. It is the case of the petitioner that it had submitted a representation dated 16.03.2017, after coming to know about the order dated 17.12.2012, to the first and second respondents of the writ petition and by the order dated 14.12.2017, as noted supra, the request made by the respondent/writ petitioner was rejected, in terms of Rule 5(2)(d), 5(2)(i) and 5(2)(b)(iii) of the Rules. 11. Mr. K. Jagan Mohan Reddy, learned Government Pleader for the appellant submits that the instant case is not covered by the decision rendered in W.P.No.5680 of 2018 and that apart, while W.P.No.5680 of 2018 was filed in connection with establishment of new manufactory for manufacturing of IMFL, the present is a case of expansion of the existing capacity of the manufactory. He also submits that the learned single Judge, while deciding W.P.No.5680 of 2018, was not correct in holding that Rules 5(2)(d), 5(2)(i) and 5(2)(b)(iii) of the Rules do not apply in the facts and circumstances of the case. The Government, on consideration of existing production of distilleries, existing consumption and also import into the State, came to a conclusion that there was no need to proceed with further production/increase of production by issuing LOI to the existing distillery owners and, therefore, had withdrawn the notification and, when the amount deposited was nonadjustable and non-refundable, there was no question of issuing a Mandamus to the appellant to refund, that too, with interest, he contends. 12. Mr. Sivaraju Srinivas, learned counsel for the respondent/writ petitioner, submits that the fundamental issue raised in W.P.No.4201 of 2018 and the present one is fully covered by the decision of this Court in W.P.No.5680 of 2018 and contends that the application submitted by the respondent/writ petitioner was not considered at all, and the same was rejected solely on the ground of change of policy and as such, the order of the learned single Judge does not require any interference and as such, the Government is liable to refund the amount deposited along with the application submitted by the respondent/writ petitioner. 13. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials on record. 14. 13. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials on record. 14. In the order dated 17.12.2012, it was noted that the existing functional licensed production capacity in the State along with its imports is adequate, on a gross basis, to meet the existing consumption demand of IMFL (other than Beer and Wine) and since the Government had changed its Excise policy regarding disposal of retail IMFL shops with effect from 01.07.2012, it needed some time to observe the trend of consumption demand so as to be able to realistically project the future requirement of production capacities and gap in capacities, if any. In the light of the above, it was recorded as follows: “(i) Not to sanction any further IMFL Distillery capacity addition at present. Accordingly all the applications submitted in pursuance of the Notifications issued vide reference 1st and 2nd read above and pending consideration of the Government (as listed in the Annexure) shall be rejected under Rule 5(2)(d) of the Andhra Pradesh Distillery (Manufacture of IMFL other than Beer and Wine) Rules, 2006. (ii) Notifications shall be issued withdrawing Government’s intention to receive any more applications for grant of LOIs for establishment of new Manufactory or expansion of production capacity of existing Manufactories.” 15. Recording the above, all the applications submitted pursuant to the notification dated 01.01.2008, as also notification dated 10.06.2008, were disposed of. 16. After considering Rules 4 and 5 of the Rules, this Court while disposing of W.A.No.1603 of 2018 vide order dated 24.02.2021, observed as follows: “Rule 4(3) of the Rules provides that Government, may by notification, issue from time to time, withdraw their intention of granting Letter of Intent for establishment of new manufactory or expansion of the production capacity and it is on the basis thereof that the notification dated 19.12.2012 was issued withdrawing the intention of the Government of granting LOI for establishment of new IMFL manufactories. While rejecting the prayer for refund by the order dated 14.12.2017, reliance was placed on Rules 5(2)(b), 5(2)(b)(i) and 5(2)(b)(iii). Rule 5(2)(b)(i) provides that no application shall be entertained unless the nonrefundable and non-adjustable fee as indicated therein is paid into Government treasury and the challan in original in support of payment is produced along with the application. While rejecting the prayer for refund by the order dated 14.12.2017, reliance was placed on Rules 5(2)(b), 5(2)(b)(i) and 5(2)(b)(iii). Rule 5(2)(b)(i) provides that no application shall be entertained unless the nonrefundable and non-adjustable fee as indicated therein is paid into Government treasury and the challan in original in support of payment is produced along with the application. Rule 5(2)(b)(i) provides that a special fee as specified therein, shall also be paid into Government treasury and a challan in original in support of payment be produced along with the application. Rule 5(2)(b)(iii) provides that the special fee remitted under clause (ii) above, shall be adjusted towards future licence fees or Excise duty or both on commencement of production. Rule 5(2)(d) provides that it shall be lawful for the Government to accept or reject without assigning any reason any application made for grant of Letter of Intent in pursuance of the notification under Rule 4(1) and (2) of these Rules. Rule 5(2)(i) provides that no compensation for damage or loss shall be payable when a Letter of Intent is rejected under clause (d) or revoked or withdrawn under Clause (h). A perusal of the letter dated 17.12.2012 goes to show that the application of the respondent/writ petitioner was rejected under Rule 5(2)(d) of the Rules on the ground that a decision was taken by the Government not to sanction any further IMFL Distillery capacity addition. Clause 5(2)(b) uses the expression “entertain”. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Lakshmi Rattan Engineering Works v. Asst. Commissioner, Sales Tax, Kanpur and others, reported in AIR 1968 SC 488 , interpreted the expression “entertain” as meaning “adjudicate upon or proceed to consider on merits”. It is for such consideration it was laid down that applications shall not be entertained unless a nonrefundable and non-adjustable fee as detailed therein, is produced along with the application. When an application is accompanied by a non-refundable and non-adjustable fee as well as special fee, such application has to be considered on merits. It is an admitted position that the application of the respondent/writ petitioner was not considered on merits and was rejected only because the Government decided not to sanction any further IMFL Distillery capacity addition. When an application is accompanied by a non-refundable and non-adjustable fee as well as special fee, such application has to be considered on merits. It is an admitted position that the application of the respondent/writ petitioner was not considered on merits and was rejected only because the Government decided not to sanction any further IMFL Distillery capacity addition. While Rule 4(3) of the Rules enables the Government to withdraw intention of granting LOI for establishment of new manufactory or expansion of the production capacity of the categories of existing manufactory for any of the purposes separately, it cannot be countenanced that when such a course of action is taken without considering pending applications, the Government would be entitled to retain the fee deposited along with the application. In the facts of the case, Rule 5(2)(i) will not come into play for the simple reason that the petitioner is not praying for any compensation for damage or loss.” 17. We are of the opinion that, issue raised in the Writ Petition No.4201 of 2018 is fully covered by the judgment rendered in W.P.No.5680 of 2018 which was affirmed in W.A.No.1630 of 2018.As such, we find no merit in this appeal and accordingly, the same is dismissed. No order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.