HOTEL RESIDENCY PLACE Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH the petitioners in these writ petitions are engaged in hotel business and obtained licence for retail sale of foreign liquor as required under the provisions of the Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950 (for short "the Act of 1950') and the Rules framed thereunder, namely. The Rajasthan Excise Rules, 1956 (for short "the Rules of 1956") read with Rajasthan Excise (Grant of Hotel Bar/club Bar Licences) Rules, 1973 (for short "the Rules of 1973" ). The term of the licence was to expire on 31. 3. 2005. According to the petitioner, as per the condition of licence, the petitioner was eligible to obtain renewal of the licence on payment of renewal fee as per rule 3 (3) of the Rules of 1973 amounting to Rs. 1. 50 lacs with fee as per Rule 69 (1) of the Rules of 1956 which is Rs. 25,000/ -. The petitioner, for that purpose, also received a letter from the District Excise Officer wherein it was mentioned that initial fee of Rs. 1. 50 lacs as well as minimum rent fee of Rs. 25,000/- is required to be deposited by the petitioners latest by 28. 2. 2005. On depositing the said amount according to the petitioner, he became entitled to get the renewal of the licence for the financial year 2005-06. The petitioner deposited the above mentioned amount within time. i. e. by 28. 2. 2005. According to the petitioners, since he petitioner deposited the entire amount of the licence fee on 28. 2. 2005, therefore, he is entitled to have renewal of his licence on the same terms and conditions as were prevailing on 28. 2. 2005 and in accordance with the terms contained in the original licence granted to the petitioner. Despite this, the respondents on the strength of amendment in the Rules of 1956, which came into force with effect from 1. 4. 2005, is demanding the licence fee Rs. 1. 50 lacs more on the ground that by amending the rules, the licence fee has been increased from Rs. 1. 50 lacks to Rs. 3. 00 lacs and, therefore, the petitioner though deposited the entire amount of renewal fees equal to 100% of the licence fees but prior to 1. 4. 2005 and was holding the licence, still he is required to pay the licence fee according to the amended rules.

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, the controversy stands fully covered by the Division Bench decision of this Court delivered in the case of State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Ms. Hotel Hillock Pvt. Sirohi (2002 (2) RLR 197 ). The Division Bench in detail examined the effect of the condition requiring depositing of the licence fee and held that the minimum licence fee under Rule 69 (1) of the Rules of 1956 as well as initial fee under the Rules of 1973 is payable at the time of making of the application inasmuch as application itself is required to be filed along with the proof of payment of such demand and since initial fee of renewal is to be equal to the amount which is payable for grant of licence under rule 3 (3) of the Rules of 1973, no amount remains due and outstanding thereafter, therefore, the quantum of liability to be discharged at the time of making of renewal application is determined when renewal application becomes due to be presented and so presented. ACCORDING to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Division Bench very specifically observed that one cannot look in future what shall be liability for application for securing renewal of existing licence and to await for it. Therefore, unless the rule is amended retrospectively giving effect to the amount payable as consideration for parting with the exclusive privilege by the State with effect from the date prior to the date when such liability becomes due to be discharged, no additional liability can be raised and demanded in respect of an obligation which has already been due and discharged by the licensee under the existing rules. ACCORDING to the learned counsel for the petitioner, rest of the reasons given in the above said judgment, unequivocally says that all liabilities for renewal stand discharged on the date when licensee is required to pay the entire licence fee and in this case, the petitioner admittedly has paid the entire licence fee and other amount as required by law, before 1. 4. 2005, therefore, the State is under obligation to renew the licence of the petitioner on the basis of the payment which the State received and after payment, no liability of the petitioner remained to be discharged.

(3.) I considered the submissions and the judgments relied upon by both the learned counsels. The facts which are in brief, may again be recapitulated here. The petitioners are licensees as they have been granted licences for the sale of foreign liquor at their hotels under the provisions of the Rajasthan Excise Act and the Rules framed thereunder. The term of licence was upto 31. 3. 2005. The petitioners submitted the application for renewal and deposited the renewal fees within the period, i. e. 28. 2. 2005. Rule 3 (3) of the Rules of 1973 has been amended with effect from 1. 4. 2005. The respondents are demanding increased licence fee from granting licence for the period starting from 1. 4. 2005 whereas the petitioner claims that the petitioners' liability since stand determined and stand discharged before the amendment came into force, therefore, the respondents cannot demand licence fees from the petitioners as per the amended rules.