( 1 ) IN this batch of writ petitions the main relief sought is for a declaration that the Karnataka Excise (Amendment) Ordinance, 1993 is arbitrary and unconstitutional. Further an appropriate writ of mandamus is sought against the respondents from taking any steps for the supply of arrack in polythene sachets or bottles through respondents 4 and 5. The impugned Ordinance is referred hereinafter as 'the Ordinance'. Respondent No. 4 is referred as mysugar and the 5th respondent as MSIL.

( 2 ) WRIT Petition No. 17070 of 1993 is alleged to be a public interest litigation filed by a person who is concerned about the consumption of arrack and the hazards that is likely to be caused on account of the decision of the state Government in making available arrack in sachets and bottles without proper rules and regulations. For the sake of convenience the term 'petitioners' referred in this order shall refer to the licensees who are immediately affected by the enforcement of the Ordinance and the amendment of certain rules which are also challenged by seeking amendment of the writ petitions. Since no separate order is made on the amendment applications we permit the amendments and the amendment applications are to be read as part of the pleadings.

( 3 ) THE petitioners are the licensees under Rule 6 (1) of the Karnataka Excise (Manufacture and Bottling of Arrack) Rules, 1987 (hereinafter referred as 'arrack Bottling Rules' ). Each licence is confined to a particular area within which licensee has to supply bottled arrack to the persons holding the rights to vend arrack in retail. The period of licence is five years, renewable for another term of five years and so on as per the existing law prior to the Ordinance.

( 4 ) ALL the 18 petitioners obtained licences in the year 1987. On the expiry of initial period of licences in the year 1992, the licences were renewed for a period of further five years from 1-7-1992 to 30-6-1997. In pursuance of the issuance of these licences the petitioners entered into appropriate agreements with the State Government.

( 5 ) ALL the petitioners are also licensees under the Karnataka Excise (Distillery and Warehouse) Rules, 1967 (for short 'distillery Rules' ). In fact only a licence holder under the Distillery Rules could be granted the licence under the Arrack Bottling Rules, as was in force earlier to the Ordinance. However, a licence issued under the Distillery Rules operates only for a period of one year and has to be renewed every year.

( 6 ) SECTION 16-A of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 ('the Act' for short) provided for the grant of licence to manufacture and bottle arrack, for sale. In these writ petitions we are concerned with Section 16-A (l) (c) which stated that: "notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, no licence, to manufacture and bottle arrack for sale be granted to any person who is not the holder of a distillery licence granted under Section 16". The Ordinance amends this provision and the amended provision reads as follows:"notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, no licence, - to manufacture and bottle arrack for sale be granted to any person other than a company or an agency owned or controlled by the State Government or a State Government Department". The Ordinance also introduced Section 16-B, which reads as follows:"licences granted for manufacture and bottling of arrack cease to be valid. (1)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in any judgment, decree or order or any court, every licence granted, (i)to manufacture arrack; or (ii)to bottle; or (iii)to manufacture and bottle arrack; for sale shall cease to be valid on the expiry of 30th June, 1993: provided that nothing contained in this section shall affect any obligation or liability incurred in respect of such licence before the First day of July, 1993. (2) When a licence ceases to be valid under sub-section (1), a part of the licence fee proportionate to the unexpired portion o