TATIA, J. - (1.) BOTH the petitioners in these writ petitions are engaged in hotel business and obtained licence for retail sale of foreign liquor as required under the provisions of the Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950 (for short "the Act of 1950') and the Rules framed thereunder, namely. The Rajasthan Excise Rules, 1956 (for short "the Rules of 1956") read with Rajasthan Excise (Grant of Hotel Bar/club Bar Licences) Rules, 1973 (for short "the Rules of 1973" ). The term of the licence was to expire on 31. 3. 2005. According to the petitioner, as per the condition of licence, the petitioner was eligible to obtain renewal of the licence on payment of renewal fee as per rule 3 (3) of the Rules of 1973 amounting to Rs. 1. 50 lacs with fee as per Rule 69 (1) of the Rules of 1956 which is Rs. 25,000/ -. The petitioner, for that purpose, also received a letter from the District Excise Officer wherein it was mentioned that initial fee of Rs. 1. 50 lacs as well as minimum rent fee of Rs. 25,000/- is required to be deposited by the petitioners latest by 28. 2. 2005. On depositing the said amount according to the petitioner, he became entitled to get the renewal of the licence for the financial year 2005-06. The petitioner deposited the above mentioned amount within time. i. e. by 28. 2. 2005. According to the petitioners, since he petitioner deposited the entire amount of the licence fee on 28. 2. 2005, therefore, he is entitled to have renewal of his licence on the same terms and conditions as were prevailing on 28. 2. 2005 and in accordance with the terms contained in the original licence granted to the petitioner. Despite this, the respondents on the strength of amendment in the Rules of 1956, which came into force with effect from 1. 4. 2005, is demanding the licence fee Rs. 1. 50 lacs more on the ground that by amending the rules, the licence fee has been increased from Rs. 1. 50 lacks to Rs. 3. 00 lacs and, therefore, the petitioner though deposited the entire amount of renewal fees equal to 100% of the licence fees but prior to 1. 4. 2005 and was holding the licence, still he is required to pay the licence fee according to the amended rules.
(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, the controversy stands fully covered by the Division Bench decision of this Court delivered in the case of State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Ms. Hotel Hillock Pvt. Sirohi (2002 (2) RLR 197 ). The Division Bench in detail examined the effect of the condition requiring depositing of the licence fee and held that the minimum licence fee under Rule 69 (1) of the Rules of 1956 as well as initial fee under the Rules of 1973 is payable at the time of making of the application inasmuch as application itself is required to be filed along with the proof of payment of such demand and since initial fee of renewal is to be equal to the amount which is payable for grant of licence under rule 3 (3) of the Rules of 1973, no amount remains due and outstanding thereafter, therefore, the quantum of liability to be discharged at the time of making of renewal application is determined when renewal application becomes due to be presented and so presented. ACCORDING to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Division Bench very specifically observed that one cannot look in future what shall be liability for application for securing renewal of existing licence and to await for it. Therefore, unless the rule is amended retrospectively giving effect to the amount payable as consideration for parting with the exclusive privilege by the State with effect from the date prior to the date when such liability becomes due to be discharged, no additional liability can be raised and demanded in respect of an obligation which has already been due and discharged by the licensee under the existing rules. ACCORDING to the learned counsel for the petitioner, rest of the reasons given in the above said judgment, unequivocally says that all liabilities for renewal stand discharged on the date when licensee is required to pay the entire licence fee and in this case, the petitioner admittedly has paid the entire licence fee and other amount as required by law, before 1. 4. 2005, therefore, the State is under obligation to renew the licence of the petitioner on the basis of the payment which the State received and after payment, no liability of the petitioner remained to be discharged. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, in view of the specific sub-rule (8) of Rule 3 of the Rajasthan Excise (Grant of Hotel Bar/club Bar Licences) Rules, 1973 (for short "the Rules of 1973"), the application for renewal of licence can be rejected only on the grounds mentioned in various clauses of sub-rule (8) of Rule 3 of the Rules of 1973. When the petitioner submitted application and deposited all the amounts due then the petitions application can be rejected only under Sub-rule (8) Admittedly, no ground exists for rejection of the petitioner's application for renewal of the licence as provided under sub-rule (8) of Rule 3 of the Rules of 1973, therefore, the respondents are under obligation to renew the licence of the petitioner and have no right to demand the amount according to amended rules. The learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the judgments of the Apex Court delivered in the cases of Commissioner of Income Tax, Bhopal vs. Hindustan Elector Graphites Ltd. , Indore (2000 (3) SCC 595) and K. M. Sharma vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 13 (7), New Delhi (2002 (4) SCC 339 ). According to the learned counsel for the respondent, the petitioner virtually seeking renewal of licence on the terms and conditions which are no more in existence and seeking execution of the document in accordance with the repealed provisions of law which is apparent from the facts of this case. According to the learned counsel for the respondents, if the petitioner had an intention to get the renewal of licence then he was required to submit the application within time along with the requisite fee so as to make the application eligible for consideration for renewal of licence. The submitting of application and payment of requisite amount along with the application, makes the application a valid application for consideration for renewal of licence and that application cannot be rejected on the ground of creation of additional liability subsequently after the cut-out date for submitting the application, may be true, in the facts of a particular case but the document under the statutory provisions of law, can be executed according to the law in force on the date when the document is to be executed. The learned counsel for the respondents also submitted that in fact the decision of the Division Bench of this Court relied upon by in petitioner delivered in the case of M/s. Hotel Hillock Pvt. (supra) favours the respondents and not the petitioners. The learned counsel for the respondents vehemently submitted that Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Mehboob Dawood Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra (2004 (2) SCC 362), held that a judgment should be understood in the light of facts of that case and no more should be read into it than what it actually says. Hon'ble the Supreme Court also cautioned that it is neither desirable nor permissible to pick out a word or a sentence from the judgment of the Supreme Court divorced from the context of the question under consideration and treat it to be complete law decided by the Supreme Court. The judgment must be read as a whole and the observations from the judgment have to be considered in the light of the questions which were before the Supreme Court. The same view was taken in the case of Union of India vs. Amrit Lal Manchanda and Another (2004 (3) SCC 75), wherein Hon'ble the Supreme Court held that one additional or different fact may make a world of difference and, therefore, the observations of the court must be read in the context in which they appear and this is a well recognised law of precedent and, therefore, the Division Bench judgment of this Court delivered in the case of M/s. Hotel Hillock Pvt. (supra), which has been delivered laying down that once a licence has been granted in accordance with the rules in force, subsequent amendment in the Act or the Rules, if are not made applicable retrospectively, they cannot be made applicable on the licence which has already been granted and on these facts the controversy was. . . . . . . . . amendment in the rules with effect from 9. 7. 1998 over a licence which was granted from 1. 4. 1997, therefore, that was a case where the terms and conditions of already granted licence sought to be changed on the ground of amendment of the rules which were not made effective retrospectively, whereas here in this case, the respondents only demanding the additional amount as per the rules when are in force from the date when the licence is to be executed in favour of the petitioner and hence there is no question of retrospective operation of the rules of change in the terms and conditions of any executed licence.
(3.) I considered the submissions and the judgments relied upon by both the learned counsels. The facts which are in brief, may again be recapitulated here. The petitioners are licensees as they have been granted licences for the sale of foreign liquor at their hotels under the provisions of the Rajasthan Excise Act and the Rules framed thereunder. The term of licence was upto 31. 3. 2005. The petitioners submitted the application for renewal and deposited the renewal fees within the period, i. e. 28. 2. 2005. Rule 3 (3) of the Rules of 1973 has been amended with effect from 1. 4. 2005. The respondents are demanding increased licence fee from granting licence for the period starting from 1. 4. 2005 whereas the petitioner claims that the petitioners' liability since stand determined and stand discharged before the amendment came into force, therefore, the respondents cannot demand licence fees from the petitioners as per the amended rules. The relevant rules may be taken note of. As per Rule 72-A of the Rules of 1956, the application for licence as well as for renewal are required to be submitted under the said rules. The same provision provides for application for new licence as well as for renewal of licence. For renewal of existing licence, the licensee is required to submit application for renewal of licence at least one month before commencement of the year for which licence is required. Rule 72-A further provides that the application shall be accompanied by a treasury receipt showing payment of license fee. Rule 72-A further provides where application for renewal is not made within the prescribed period, it shall be accompanied by additional fee, equivalent to 25% of such fee or five rupees which ever is higher. Apart from above Rules of 1956, there is another set of rules in the Rules of 1973 which are specific rules for the purpose of granting such licences for Hotel and Club Bar. Since the petitioners are licensees for the liquor for their hotels, therefore, they are governed by the Rules of 1973. Sub-rule (3) of rule 3 of the Rules of 1993 is as under:- " Rule 3 (3) - Every application for Hotel Bar/club Bar Licence shall be properly signed and shall be accompanied by the following amount of initial fee which shall be in addition to the usual annual fee payable under rule 69 (1) of the Rajasthan Excise Rules 1956. Where application is for a Hotel Bar/club Bar Licence in the town with the population indicated below, the initial fee shall be as under:- S. No. Category (Population of Cities on the Basis of 1991 Census Initial fee for licence for their year of part thereof For Liquor Being allowing to be Consumed in Bar Room only (Rs. in lacs) For Liquor Being Allowed to be consumed in whole of of Licence premises (Rs. in lacks) 1. 2. 3. 4.A. Luxury Hotel/train 1. Five Star Hotels (a) Liquor & Normal Beer (b) Drought Beer 2. Three & Four Star - - 7. 50 1. 00 5. 50 B. Heritage Hotel 1. Category A 2. Category B 3. Category c - - 1. 50 7. 50 4. 00 2. 50 C. Other Hotels: 1. Hotels situated in & within 10 Kms. of the Municipal limits of cities with population of one than one lack Jaisalmer & Mount Abu 2. Situated in other cities 1. 50 0. 75 3. 00 1. 50 D. Club Bar 1. Club Bar 0. 50 1. 50 ;