B.R. Gavai, J.

1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent.

2. The petitioners have approached this Court being aggrieved by communication dt.31.3.2015 issued by respondent no.4 directing the petitioners to furnish the resolution of Gram Sabha thereby resolving to grant No Objection for renewal of petitioners' licences. The petitioners have prayed for a declaration that the provisions under Rule 4 of the Maharashtra Panchayat Extension to Scheduled Area (Prohibition and Regulation of Licensing) Rules, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules of 2015") are not applicable for renewal of the licenses which are in existence prior to the coming into force of the said Rules.

3. All the petitioners are holding country liquor CLIII/FLII licenses in Ghatanji taluka, District Yavatmal. Undisputedly, the petitioners are running their business in the areas which fall under the Scheduled Areas declared for the State of Maharashtra by the President under Article 244 of the Constitution of India and are, therefore, administered and controlled as per Schedule V appended to the Constitution.

4. On 24.12.1996, the Parliament has enacted the Panchayats (Extension of the Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as "the PESA Act") extending application of the provisions of Part IX of the Constitution of India to the Scheduled areas. The State Legislature has also made certain provisions in the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1958 for Gram Sabha and for giving effect to the features enumerated in Section 4 of the PESA Act. The said provision also includes matter relating to prohibition and regulation of intoxicants in the village to be dealt by the Gram Sabha of the Village.

5. In pursuance of the provisions under the PESA Act and the amendment to the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1958, the State Government has notified the said Rules. As per the provisions of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949 and the Rules framed thereunder, the licences granted to the petitioners are renewable on year to year basis. Accordingly, the petitioners have applied for renewing their licences for the period from 1.4.2015 to 31.3.2016. When the cases of the petitioners were being considered for renewal, the impugned communications came to be addressed. Being aggrieved thereby, the present petitions.

6. Mr. Abhay Sambre, learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that perusal of the Rules itself would reveal that the said Rules are not applicable to the licences which are already in existence. The learned Counsel submits that No Objection of the Gram Sabha as contemplated under sub-rule 4 will be applicable only if the license is granted after commencement of the said Rules.

7. Mrs. Bharti Dangre, learned Government Pleader vehemently contended that the interpretation placed by the learned Counsel for the petitioners is totally incorrect. She submits that the Rules are framed in order to give effect to the provisions under the PESA Act empowering the Gram Sabhas to decide as to whether manufacturing or selling of liquor should be permitted in their areas or not. The learned Government Pleader submits that applying the rule of Pragmatic interpretation, the Rules should also be applicable to all such licences which provide for manufacturing or selling of liquor if they fall within the Scheduled areas.

8. For appreciating the rival contentions, it will be appropriate to refer to Rules 3 and 4 of the Rules of 2015, which read thus :-

"4. Before the expiry of the license so granted, the Gram Sabha resolution shall be required for its renewal. The proposal for renewal of the license shall required to be presented by the licensing authority, if the license holder so applies, to the Gram Sabha, thirty days prior to the date of expiry of the license. The Gram Sabha shall convey its opinion in the form of a resolution on the said application prior to the date of expiry of the licence.

5. The Gram Sabha shall determine the quantity of loc