TMI Blog2016 (5) TMI 1X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... piry of the license on 07.03.2005, the respondent collected privilege fee, which is applicable for the Three Star Hotels even after 07.03.2005. The 1st respondent, without taking into consideration the expiry of the Three Star license on 07.03.2005 and the letter dated 11.05.2005 by the Regional Director, India Tourism, has erroneously rejected the petitioner's representation for refund of the privilege fee collected after 07.03.2005. The petitioner is entitled to get refund of the excess amount paid by them from the year 2005-06 (i.e.) from 01.04.2005. - Petition disposed of - W.P.No.1434 of 2015, M.P.No.1 of 2015 - - - Dated:- 20-4-2016 - M. Duraiswamy, J. For the Petitioner : Mr. R. Bharanidharan For the Respondents : Mr. M. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er sought to withdraw the Three Star status to the petitioner and accordingly, applied to the Regional Director, India Tourism stating that they do not wish to seek for re-classification of their Hotel as Three Star hotel. The Regional Director had issued a letter dated 11.05.2005 for cancelling the Three Star classification issued to the petitioner and also issued a certificate on 10.10.2006 clarifying that the petitioner is not a Three Star Hotel classified by the Department of Tourism with effect from 07.03.2005. After the withdrawal of the status, the petitioner was required to pay a sum of ₹ 1,00,000/- as privilege fee as applicable to that year and when the petitioner had approached the 3rd respondent for reducing the privilege ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... directing the respondent to refund the excess privilege amount. This Court, by order dated 14.11.2014, disposed of the Writ Petition by directing the respondent to dispose of the representation of the petitioner dated 03.04.2012 by taking into consideration the recommendation of the 2nd respondent dated 03.01.2011. When the petitioner was called for personal hearing on 01.12.2014, the petitioner appeared before the 1st respondent through their counsel and also furnished all the relevant documents to show that the Hotel run by the petitioner was not a Three Star Hotel. However, by the impugned order dated 22.12.2014, the 1st respondent rejected the request of the petitioner relying upon an order of this Court made in W.P.(MD).No.1080 and 14 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... om 2005-06. The petitioner's Hotel is liable to pay the fee applicable for regular Hotels. Inspite of the expiry of the license on 07.03.2005, the respondent collected privilege fee, which is applicable for the Three Star Hotels even after 07.03.2005. The 1st respondent, without taking into consideration the expiry of the Three Star license on 07.03.2005 and the letter dated 11.05.2005 by the Regional Director, India Tourism, has erroneously rejected the petitioner's representation for refund of the privilege fee collected after 07.03.2005. The petitioner is entitled to get refund of the excess amount paid by them from the year 2005-06 (i.e.) from 01.04.2005. 9. In these circumstances, the impugned order passed by the 1st respond ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
