RAJENDRA GANPAT UDAYPRABHU Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As all these writ petitions raise common questions of law and facts, they are being decided by a common judgment. For convenience, the facts are taken from Writ Petition No. 10297 of 1999.

(2.) The petitioner holds a CL-III licence and carries on the business of sale of country liquor in accordance with the Maharashtra Country Liquor Rules, 1973. These Rules are framed under Sec. 143 of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949.

(3.) In the year 1996, the State of Maharashtra brought into force the Maharashtra Potable Liquor (Periodicity and Fees for Grant, Renewal or Continuance of Licences) Rules, 1996. These Rules authorize the Commissioner to issue a notification sixty days prior to the commencement of the financial year for fixing licence fees. In exercise of powers under Rule 4 of the 1996 Rules, the Commissioner of State Excise issued a notification in January 2001 fixing the licence fee for the year 2001-2002, commencing from 1/4/2001 and ending on 31/3/2002. The fee was fixed on the basis of the population of Nashik City as per the 1991 census. Accordingly, the petitioner was required to pay Rs.59,000.00 as licence fee for the year 2001-2002. Rule 3 of the 1996 Rules permitted payment of licence fee for a block period of five years at the rate of four and a half years. Availing this facility, the petitioner paid Rs.2,65,500.00 and renewed the licence up to the year 2007- 2008.