( 1 ) THE petitioners are Ihe licensees of FL-17 and FL-24. The licences were granted under Indian-made Foreign Liquor Rules, 1970 (forshort the Rules ) which have been framed in exercise of rule-making powers conferred under the A. P. Excise Act, 1968 (for short ihe Act ). The licences were valid for a period of 5 years commencing from 1-10-1987 to 30-9-1992. The licence fees for FL-24 was Rs. 27,000. 00 and for FL-27 was Rs. 36,000. 00 prior to publication of GO. Ms. No. 18, Mpl. Admn. and Urban Development Department, dt. 9-1-1989. By the said GO. Sirpur area was included in the area of Kagaznagar Municipality with effect from 20-1-89. Kagaznagar municipality had a population of 18,120 and on tiie basis of the said population, the licence fees was originally levied. After the inclusion of Sirpur area, which comprises of population of 33,536, into Kagaznagar Municipality the population increased to atotal of 51,656. A show cause notice dt. 17-9-89 was issued by the respondent calling upon the petitioners to pay the differential amount of license fees and also the enhanced amount of licence fees which was fixed in the notification issued on 20-1-1989. The petitioners challenge the demand made by the respondent for the enhanced licence fees on the ground of increase in the population of Kagaznagar Municipality, in this writ petition.

( 2 ) IT was contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that licences liafe been granted on the basis of population existing as on 1-10-1987 and the period of licence being 5 years the licence fees cannot be altered to the disadvantage of the petitioners during the subsistence of the said period of licence. The Respondent has no jurisdiction to demand more licence fees than was prescribed at the relevant time.

( 3 ) IN Ihe counter-affidavit filed by the respondent, it is stated that in GO. Ms. No. 18, dt. 9-1-1989, Sirpur area was included into the limits of Kagaznagar Municipality w. e. f. 20-1-1989. By virtue of such merger. the population of the present Kagaznagar Municipality increased to 51,656. Under Rule 25 of the Rules licence fees has to be called on the following rated where the population is above 50,000: 1. FL-24. . . Rs. 40,5007- 2. FL-17. . . Rs. 54,0007-It was also stated that the petitioners had given an undertaking under clause (iv) in counterpart agreement in Form FL. 28, to pay enchanced licence fees that might be levied by the licensing authority.

( 4 ) THE learned Government Pleader, therefore, contended that the enhancement of licence fees was necessitated on account of the increase in the population of the Municipality and that the petitioners having given an undertaking, making themselves liable to pay any enhanced levy, are estopped from questioning the same.

( 5 ) TO appreciate the above contention, it is necessary to notice some of the statutory provisions, relating to licences, made under the Act. Chapter- VI of the Act deals with licences. Sub-section (1) of Section 28 of the Act provides that every licence granted is subject to certain restrictions and conditions. The licence shall be in the prescribed form and shall also contain such particulars as prescribed under the Rules. Section 29 empowers the authority to require Ihe licencee to execute a counterpart agreement in conformity with Ihe tenor of his licence. Rule 25 of the Rules, provides for the payment of annual licence fees, which is at the rates shown in the schedule appended to the Rules. The licence fees fixed in die schedule is based upon and is directly proportional to the population of Ihe village/town/city. A uniform slab is fixed for any area having population not exceeding 10,000 and another slab for an area above 50,000 and yet another slab for an area above 500 but does not exceed 3 lakhs, etc. Rule 30 of the Rules provides for making an application for the grant of licence. Sub-Rule (3) mandates the applicant to execute a counter-part agreement in Form FL-28. Clause (iv) of the agreem

Click Here to Read the rest of this document