- (1.) IN these cases, as the common question of law is involved, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.
(2.) THE appellants have challenged the respective orders passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby and whereunder the writ petitions preferred by them were rejected. The appellant, M/s Liquor King, Palamau (LPA No. 191 of 2006) has challenged the order contained in Memo No. 319 dated 26th April, 2005 issued by the respondents, whereby and whereunder the appellant was directed to deposit a further sum of Rs. 3,50,000/ - being the difference of enhanced licence fee. Similar order contained in Memo No. 836 dated 29th April, 2005 issued by the respondents have been challenged by the appellant, M/s Mount Shivalik Breweries Ltd. (LPA No. 234 of 2006).
(3.) THE main plea taken by the appellants is that the subsequent notification No. 522 dated 12th April, 2005 issued by the respondents enhancing the licence fee from Rs. 1,50,000/ - to Rs. 5,00,000/ - is not applicable to the Licensees, whose licences have been renewed prior to Notification No. 522 dated 12th April, 2005. It was submitted that the said Notification being prospective in nature, as is evident from Clause -2 of the said Notification, the same cannot apply to the licensees, whose licences have already been renewed.;