TIKAMDAS NATHIRMAL Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in this case, who runs a cafe at Indore, was granted under the excise Act, 1915, and the Foreign Liquor Rules made thereunder (hereinafter referred to as the Act and the Rules), a licence in Form F. L. 3 for sale of foreign liquor for consumption on the premises for a period of one year from 1st April 1963 to 31st March 1964. At the time when the licence was issued on 1st April 1963 the Fee payable under Rule 11 (iii) of the Rules was 0. 37np. per quart bottle of malt, liquor and cider, and Re. 1. 50 np. per quart bottle of foreign liquor other than mall liquor and eider brought on the licensed premises and was payable in advance on the date of the expiry of this licence on 31st March 1964 the petitioner had with him some undisposed of stock of foreign liquor which he had brought to his licensed premises under the licence. He obtained a fresh licence for a further period of one year commencing from 1st April 1964.

(2.) ON 25th April 1964 a notification was issued by the Government in the exercise of its powers under Section 62 (2), Clauses (a), (d), (g) and (h), amending in certain respects the Foreign Liquor Rules. By one of the amendments the scale of fees in respect of a licence in Form F. L. 3 prescribed by Rule 11 (iii) was amended, and the fee payable under the amended Rule became Re. 1. 10np. per quart bottle of mall liquor and cider, and Rs. 4. 50np. per quart bottle of foreign liquor other than malt, liquor and cider, brought on the licensed premises Rule IV of the Rules was also amended by the addition of the following provision al the end of it: --"the licensee shall be liable to pay the difference of fees per bottle on the balance of stocks of foreign liquor in the event of the enhancement of the scale of fees during the currency or on expiry of the licence. " these amendments were made effective as from 1st April 1964. Even before these amendments were notified, the Circle Inspector, Excise, Indore. addressed a communication to the petitioner on 1st April 1964 calling upon him to pay Rs. 4,324. 15 np. , said to be the difference of fees paid by him according to the old scale on the undisposed, of stock of foreign liquor on 31st March 1964 and the fee payable by him on that stock under the revised scale. The letter of the Circle inspector was followed by another letter dated 6th April 1964 of the Excise. Sub-Inspector and a letter dated 18th April 1964 of the District Excise Officer. Indore, both asking the petitioner to deposit the amount of Rs 4,324 15np. The applicant protested against this demand and ultimately on 1st June 1964 gave a notice of demand for justice to the opponents saying that his licence for the period from 1st April 1963 in 31st March 1964 having already come to an end and the fee in respect of stock brought by him on the licensed premises under that licence having already been paid by him, he was not liable to pay any further amount, whether under the revised scale of fees or otherwise. As the petitioner did not receive any reply to this notice of demand for justice, he filed this application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution for declaration that the demand on him for the payment of Rs. 4,324. 15 np was illegal and unauthorized and for the issue of a writ of certiorari for quashing the notices given to him by the Sub-Inspector and Circle Inspector of Excise and the District Excise Officer, Indore.

(3.) SHRI Chaphekar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, contended that according to the Foreign Liquor Rides and the conditions embodied in Form F. L. 3 licence, the fee paid by the petitioner was the consideration for the licence for the year 1963-64; that the fee payable by him according to the old scale on the basis of the quantity of foreign liquor brought on the licensed premises having already been paid by him in advance and the licence having come to an end, a fresh demand for fees in respect of the liquor brought on the premises under the expired licence while it was current could not be made; that the conditions of the licence issued to him for the year 1963-64 did not provide for the payment of enhanced duty during its currency or after its expiry; and that the amendments made in Rules II and IV in April 1064 governed licences issued on and after lst april 1964 and not those which had been issued before that data for the previous years.