NARSIMHA WINES Vs. PROHIBITION AND EXCISE SUPERINTENDENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vires of sub-rule (9) of Rule 25 of the Andhra Pradesh Indian Liquor and Foreign Liquor Rules, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') is in question in this batch of writ petitions. FACTS:

(2.) The petitioners are granted IL 24 licence for retail sale of liquor for the lease year 2000-2001. Allegedly the licence was effective from 17-5-2000 to 31-3-2001. By reason of G.O.Ms.No. 190, Revenue (Ex. III) Department, dated 24-3-1998, sub-rule (9) has been inserted in Rule 25 of the Rules which is to the following effect: The annual licence fee for the licences in Form IL 24 referred to in Rule 23 shall be amended from time to time at the rates as shown in the schedule appended to these Rules. The annual licence fee for a lease year shall be paid before the commencement of the lease year to which it relates in one lump-sum or in three equal instalments or in a manner as notified from time to time. Where the licence is issued before the 31st May of the lease year, the first instalment i.e., l/3rd of the annual licence fee shall be paid into the Government Treasury through a....... SUBMISSIONS:

(3.) The bone of contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that having regard to the scope and object of the Act, as no person can carry on any business save and except in terms of licence granted under the said Act, collection of licence fee for the period during which the licence was not operative, must be held to be illegal. The learned Counsel would contend that collection of such licence fee is arbitrary particularly having regard to the fact that a licence is granted for a period less than 12 months. The learned Counsel would submit that having regard to the fact that persons similarly situated viz., those who had received the licence earlier would be operating their shops for the self-same period for the same amount, the impugned order must be held to be discriminatory.