B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.

All these petitions question the notification dated 01.09.2017, issued by the State Government amending Rule 24[4] of the Maharashtra Country Liquor Rules, 1973 as unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14, 19[1][G] and 21 of the Constitution of India, as also contrary to Section 143 of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949. The Rules are hereinafter referred to as “the 1973 Rules”, while the Act is referred to as “the Prohibition Act”, for short. As these matters raise same challenge, in view of the joint request made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, all have been heard together. Shri S.P. Dharmadhikari, learned Senior Counsel with Shri D.V. Chauhan, learned Counsel argued Writ Petition No. 5938/2017 and Shri M.G. Bhangde, learned Senior Counsel with Ms. N.P. Mehta, learned Assistant Government Pleader opposed the petitions on behalf of the State Government. Respective other Counsel have also adopted their arguments only. By their consent and considering the nature of controversy, Petitions are heard finally by issuing Rule in all the petitions, making the same returnable forthwith.

2. On 12.09.2017, when this Court issued notice in Writ Petitions, following order came to be passed :

“Heard for some time.

2. Submission in short is, those whose licences were already renewed from 1.4.2017 to 31.3.2018 have been permitted to function as per orders dated 31.8.2017 in Writ Petition No. 3250/2017.

3. Others whose licences normally should have been renewed but for no fault on their part, were not renewed have been subjected to amendment published on 1.9.2017. Thus, there is discrimination between the licensees.

4. It is pointed out that in any case amendment to Rule 24 of the Maharashtra Country Liquor Rules, 1973 cannot apply retrospectively and language of amendment does not imply so. It is submitted that thus licences which are not renewed can also not be subjected to this new norm.

5. The petitioners insist for grant of interim order in terms of prayer clause – (iv).

6. Learned acting Government Pleader is seeking time. He points out that he has received petitions yesterday only.

7. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners points out that as there was caveat filed, the respondents should have been ready.

8. It is not in dispute that caveat has been filed on 4.9.2017.

9. In this situation, in the backdrop of order dated 31.8.2017 in Writ Petition No.3250/2017 and arguments noted (supra), we grant ad-interim relief in terms of prayer clause (iv) until further orders.

Stand over to 26.09.2017.

Steno copy of the order is granted.”

3. By Sub-rule [4] as amended, the petitioners who already have licences to run country liquor shop (CLIII Licences), are expected to possess minimum 25 square meters of area, and there are certain other conditions added as eligibility conditions in this respect. The basic contention of petitioners is, these modified contentions cannot be applied to their licences and at the most can regulate the licences to be issued in future. Requirement of satisfying the new conditions/amendment is, therefore, bad. The State Government has submitted that the amended contentions are prescribed in public interest and have been brought into force at once. They also apply to the licences to be renewed and unless and until the petitioners comply therewith, their licences cannot be renewed.

4. Shri Dharmadhikari, learned Senior Counsel in this background has submitted that the petitioners have sought renewal for period from 01.04.2017 to 31.03.2018. Because of the issues which arose out of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of State of Tamil Nadu vs. K. Balu & another (2017) 2 SCC 281), prohibiting liquor shops on Highways, their applications for renewal were kept pending and on 01.09.2017, Rules have been amended. The amended Rules therefore, cannot govern their applications which are moved before 01.04.2017. It is further pointed out that as petitioners have got their shops i