JUDGMENT Ninala Jayasurya, J. - Aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge dated 03.03.2016 in dismissing the Writ Petition No.14608 of 2007, the present appeal has been preferred. 2. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to as arrayed in the Writ Petition. 3. The petitioner/ appellant filed the Writ Petition seeking to declare the action of the respondents particularly the 1st respondent in rejecting to refund the proportionate license fee and F.D.R., amount to the petitioner on suspension and cancellation of license of M/s.Bhairava Wines shop, proprietary concern of the petitioner as illegal, unjust, arbitrary and to set aside the order passed by the 1st respondent vide Memo dated 22.01.2007 with a further direction to refund the proportionate license fee and F.D.R., amount to the petitioner/licensee. 4. By an order dated 18.12.1998, the 3rd respondent cancelled the license, on the premise that the petitioner established a wine shop contrary to Rule 6 of A.P.Excise(IL & FL) Retail Sales Conditions of Licenses) Rules, 1993 (for short 'the Rules') as the distance was found 89 meters to Zilla Parishad High School, S.R.Puram. 5. Before the learned Single Judge, it was pleaded that the license was granted after inspection of the premises and as the petitioner has not committed any illegality in obtaining the license and as the same was cancelled at the instance of the respondents, the petitioner is entitled for refund of proportionate license fee. It is also contended that in the order of cancellation dated 18.12.1998, it was mentioned that the refund of proportionate license fee to the licensee cannot be made as the licensee was involved in excise Crime in P.R.No.183/97-98, that the refund is subject to the outcome of criminal case pending against the licensee and as the said criminal case ended in acquittal, the petitioner is entitled for refund of proportionate license fee. Despite the said observation, the request of the petitioner to refund the license fee was rejected by the 2nd respondent through proceedings dated 23.02.2005. Subsequently, the 1st respondent vide Memo dated 22.01.2007 informed the petitioner that the Revision Petition seeking to refund the license fee on cancellation of license is rejected for the reasons stated therein. 6. Despite the said observation, the request of the petitioner to refund the license fee was rejected by the 2nd respondent through proceedings dated 23.02.2005. Subsequently, the 1st respondent vide Memo dated 22.01.2007 informed the petitioner that the Revision Petition seeking to refund the license fee on cancellation of license is rejected for the reasons stated therein. 6. The learned Single Judge, while examining the matter, with reference to the said cancellation order and the Memo referred to above vis-à-vis Section 31(3) of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968(for short 'the Act'), dismissed the Writ Petition, inter alia holding that since the license issued in favour of the petitioner was cancelled on the ground that the shop was situated near the Educational institution and such cancellation was not challenged, the petitioner is not entitled for refund of proportionate license fee. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner, inter alia contends that the order of the learned Single Judge is not sustainable as Section 31(3) of the Act has no application to the case on hand, and the proportionate license fee has to be refunded in view of the acquittal of the petitioner in C.C.No.310 of 2001. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant that as is evident from the cancellation order dated 18.12.1998, the petitioner/appellant is entitled to refund of proportionate license fee, subject to the outcome of criminal case pending against him. He submits that the said case after a detailed Trial was dismissed by an order dated 23.07.2005 and the petitioner/appellant was acquitted. In such circumstances, the learned counsel submits that the order passed by the Excise authorities rejecting the request of the petitioner to refund the proportionate license fee, is unjust, arbitrary and unsustainable. He submits that the learned Single Judge went wrong in not appreciating these crucial aspects in a proper perspective and grossly erred in dismissing the Writ Petition by referring to Section 31(3) of the Act. Making the said submissions, the learned counsel seeks to set aside the order under challenge and to allow the Writ Appeal, as prayed for. 8. The learned Government Pleader for Excise, on the other hand, while refuting the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, advanced arguments to sustain the order of the learned Single Judge. Making the said submissions, the learned counsel seeks to set aside the order under challenge and to allow the Writ Appeal, as prayed for. 8. The learned Government Pleader for Excise, on the other hand, while refuting the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, advanced arguments to sustain the order of the learned Single Judge. It is submitted that in view of the factual and legal position of the case, the order passed by the learned Single Judge warrants no interference by this Court and the Writ Appeal is liable to be dismissed. 9. This Court has considered the submissions made by both the learned counsel and perused the material on record. On an appreciation of the rival contentions, there is no dispute with regard to granting of license to the petitioner for running a wine shop. However, it would appear that on an enquiry, it transpired that the shop was established contrary to Rule 6 of the Rules, which imposes a restriction for establishing a wine shop within 100 meters from Educational institution recognized by the Government. Therefore, a show cause notice dated 08.12.1998 was issued to the petitioner calling upon him to show cause as to why his license should not be cancelled under Section 31(1) (b) of the Act for violation of Rule 6 of the Rules and the proportionate license fee cannot be refunded. To the said notice, the petitioner submitted explanation dated 14.12.1998 and thereafter the license was cancelled by the 3rd respondent vide proceedings dated 18.12.1998. No doubt, it was mentioned in the said order that the refund of proportionate license fee cannot be made as the licensee was involved in excise crime in P.R.No.183/97-98 and that the refund is subject to outcome of the criminal case pending against the licensee. But the said observation would not enure to the benefit of the petitioner, more particularly in the light of the statutory provision in the A.P.Excise Act. Section 31 of the said Act provides that: (1) Subject to such restrictions as may be prescribed, the authority granting any licence or permit under this Act may cancel or suspend it irrespective of the period to which the licence or permit relates. (a) ......... Section 31 of the said Act provides that: (1) Subject to such restrictions as may be prescribed, the authority granting any licence or permit under this Act may cancel or suspend it irrespective of the period to which the licence or permit relates. (a) ......... (b) in the event of any breach by the holder thereof, or by any of his servants or by any one acting on his behalf with his express or implied permission, of any of the terms and conditions thereof; or (c) ....... (d) ........ (e) ........ (2)........... (3) The holder of licence or permit shall not be entitled to any compensation for its cancellation or suspension nor to the refund of any fee paid or deposit made in respect thereof. 10. As noted earlier, before cancelling the license, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner under Section 31(1) (b) of the Act and after considering the explanation submitted thereto, the license was cancelled. The 3rd respondent/competent authority cancelled the license of the petitioner on the premise that he has violated the Rule 6 of the Rules referred to supra and the said order has not been challenged. Thus, it has attained finality. In such circumstances, more particularly in the light of the statutory provision referred to supra, on which the learned Single Judge placed reliance, the order under appeal warrants no interference. 11. Even otherwise, the crime was registered against the petitioner on the allegation that he indulged in illegal sales by opening the shop when an order of suspension was in force. The learned Magistrate by giving benefit of doubt, acquitted the petitioner for the offences under Section 34(a) and 36(c) of the Act and the order is therefore of no consequence nor would it prevail over the above mentioned statutory provision i.e., Section 31(3) of the Act, which contemplates in categorical terms that on cancellation/ suspension of license/permit, the holder of license would not be entitled to the refund of any fee paid or deposit made. 12. Viewed from any angle, this Court finds no good grounds to interfere with the order dated 03.03.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge and the Writ Appeal, accordingly, is dismissed. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand closed. No costs.