BALIA, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) THESE three appeals raise a common and identical issue, hence are being heard and decided together by this common order. The issue raised is whether demand of initial renewal fee payable by any applicant and paid along with application for renewal before renewal, can be enhanced on account of amendment in Rule prescribing license fee during the operative period of licence, but after the renewal has become effective, and where such amendment is not retrospective? The petitioner in each case was granted licence under the Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950 (hereinafter called "the Act") read with Rajasthan Excise (Grant of Hotel Bar/club Bar/restaurant Bar) Licences Rules, 1973 (hereinafter called `the Rules of 1973' ). Licence initially granted for the financial year 1996-97 was to end 31. 03. 1997. Under the Rules licence is granted for a financial year (1st April to 31st March) and can be renewed from year to year. The licence in each case has been renewed from time to time w. e. f. 1. 04. 1997 to 31. 03. 1998 and 1. 04. 1998 to 31. 03. 1999. The period for which these proceedings concerns is Financial Year 1998-99. Initial fee of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rs. 2 lacs) was paid under Rule 3 (3) of the Rules of 1973 and in addition thereto Rs. 3,000/- was paid as minimum vend fee payable under Rule 69 (1) of the Rajasthan Excise Rules, 1956 when application was applied for sanction for the first time for the Financial Year 1996-97. At the time of renewal of licence for 1998-99 Rs. 3,00,000/- was paid as initial fee and in addition thereto Rs. 15,000/- was paid as minimum licence fee payable under Rule 69 (1) of the Rules of 1956, as stood revised at the time of renewal of the licence for Financial Year 1998-99. However, by amendments rates of vend fee for licence payable under sub-rule (1) of Rule 69, and the rate of fees payable per bulk litre on consumption of Foreign Liquor/beer and IMFL/beer, under Rule 3 (3) of Rules of 1973 was revised upwardly vide notification amending Rules issued and published on 9. 7. 98. As a result of this amendment initial fee for renewal under Rule 3 (3) read with Rule 7-A was raised to Rs. 4,50,000/- and minimum vend fee was fixed at Rs. 25,000/- under Rule 69 (1) of the Rules of 1956. At the rates revised vide amendment in the Rules additional demand of Rs. 1,50,000/- under Rule 3 (3) of 1973 Rules + Rs. 10,000/- under Rule 69 (1) of 1956 Rules totalling Rs. 1,60,000/- was made against each of the respondents-petitioners. This led to filing of the three writ petitions in question challenging the additional demand raised on account of amendment of Rules inter alia on the grounds that no additional demand can be raised on account of initial fees and minimum vend fees under two respective Rules retrospectively. These demands being due and payable before renewal of licence along with application for renewal remain unaffected. It was also urged that Rules have not been amended retrospectively so as to affect the amount of initial fees and minimum licence fee payable under Rules of 1973 read with Rule 69 (1) of the Rules 1956 and which was so paid along with application for renewal. Incidentally it was also contended that even if the Rules were to be amended retrospectively, the same would be void and ineffective. Learned Single Judge noticed that there is no indication in the notification that the amendments in rules were operated retrospectively, therefore no demand payable for the renewal of licence which have already become due and granted prior to the commencement of the rule, and already paid could be raised thereunder. The revised rate of fees including annual fees shall be applicable only prospectively to the demands that become due in future.
(3.) THUS, agreeing with the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners, writ petitions have been allowed and the impugned additional demands for the Financial Year 1998-99 have been quashed in each case. Aggrieved with that order in each case, three appeals have been filed by the State of Rajasthan in its Excise Department. It has been strenuously contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that since respondent in each has agreed under the terms of licence to abide by provisions of the Rajasthan Excise Act and Rules framed thereunder as amended from time to time, on amendment on the rules w. e. f. 1. 7. 98 the licensee became liable to pay licence fee as per amended rules for the Financial Year 1998-99 for the period for which the licence was renewed and he could not have avoided the demand of additional fees raised as per the amended rule. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that it is not borne out from the notification that amended rule will apply only prospectively to the licence to be granted in future and therefore, the learned Single Judge was not right in holding that no additional licence fee could be raised under the amended rules against the respondents. ;