STATE OF KERALA Vs. V.M. KOYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals and the two writ petitions have been heard together. Two of the appeals - W.A. Nos. 32 and 33 of 1976 - arise out of the common judgment in O.P. Nos. 1676 and 1782 of 1975 and the third -- W.A. No. 209 of 1976 - out of a judgment which followed the common judgment. The two writ petitions raise the same question as the appeals. In the three Writ Appeals, the State, the Assistant Commissioner of Excise and the Excise Inspector are the appellants. We shall refer to the facts in W.A. No. 32 of 1976 with respect to which the arguments were advanced. Sri K. V. Kuriakose, learned counsel for the respondent in W.A. No. 33 of 1976 replied on behalf of the respondents, and the other counsel only associated themselves with the said arguments, and added little to what was stated by Sri Kuriakose. No independent arguments were advanced in the writ petitions, their fate being left to depend on the result of the writ appeals.

(2.) The question raised in W.A. No. 32 of 1976 is regarding the quantum of licence fee payable for the year 1975-76 (that is, for the period from 1st April 1975 to 31st March 1976) in respect of foreign liquor 3 licence which was applied for by the writ petitioner for that year. The application was made on 27th March 1975. At that time the licence fee which was current and in force was Rs. 4,000. By Ext. P-1 letter dated 2nd April 1975 sent by the Excise Inspector, the writ petitioner was informed, enclosing a copy of the Board of Revenue's order (Ext. P-1), that the differential rental (licence fee) had to be remitted within 24 hours. The enclosed order of the Board of Revenue stated that the rental in respect of foreign liquor 3 licence had been enhanced to Rs. 12,000 per year. The writ petitioner claims that he was issued permit for the transport of the liquor to his place of business. The relevant Government notification enhancing the licence fee was issued only on 10th April 1975 (Ext. P-2). It was the petitioner's case that as the application for the licence had been made on 27th March 1975, before the issuance of the notification enhancing the licence fee, he was entitled to the grant of licence at the rate in force on the date of the application, and not at the enhanced rate. He accordingly prayed to declare S.24 of the Kerala Abkari Act, 1077 M.E. unconstitutional, and to quash Exts. P-1 and P-2. The learned Judge quashed Exts. P-1 and P-2 and directed a renewal of the petitioner's foreign liquor 3 licence with effect from 1st April 1975. It was ordered that the Government was entitled to get the annual fee as per Ext. R-2 notification dated 10th April 1975 only on and from that date; and that in regard to the renewal of the licence asked for before 1st April 1975 the Government was bound to renew the licence in accordance with the law then existing. The Fixed Deposit handed over to the authorities by the writ petitioner as per the direction of this Court was directed to be handed back to him.

(3.) We shall turn to the provisions of the Abkari Act 1 of 1077. S.15 of the Act enacts that no liquor or intoxicating drug shall be sold without a licence from the Commissioner. S.17(g) enacts: