Surendra Mohan, J.

Both these writ appeals challenge separate judgments of the learned single Judge in two writ petitions filed in identical circumstances. Since the question that arises for decision is common, both these appeals are considered together and disposed of by this common judgment.

2. The respondents in both these cases are Clubs. Licenses have been issued to them by the 2nd respondent under Rule 13 (4A) of the Foreign Liquor Rules (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules" for short). The licenses entitle the Clubs to vent liquor to the members of the Clubs, for consumption within their respective premises. In both the cases, requests were made for change of name of the functionaries of the respective Clubs in whose names the licenses had been issued. The change was necessitated by virtue of the change in the functionaries that had taken place at the organisational level of the Clubs. The dispute arose when the 2nd respondent insisted on payment of the fee that is stipulated by rule 19(iv) of the Rules. According to the respondents in both these appeals, substitution of the names of new functionaries who had taken charge, would not attract the fee that is stipulated by rule 19(iv) of the Rules. Therefore, they challenged the action of the 2nd respondent in two separate writ petitions. By separate judgments of the same date, the learned single Judge has held in favour of the respondents and quashed the impugned order of the 2nd respondent. The State is in appeal before us challenging the said judgments, in these writ appeals.

3. We have heard the learned Government Pleader as well as the learned Senior Counsel Sri. C.C.Thomas, who appears for the respondents in both these cases.

4. According to the learned Government Pleader, Rule 19 (iv) stipulates payment of an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs only) where change of name of a licensee is permitted. It is pointed out by the learned Government Pleader that, a license obtained under the rules was not liable to be sold, transferred or sub let without the previous sanction of the Excise Commissioner. It was for giving sanction and permitting the change of name that the fee was charged. It is contended that, the Rules do not permit transfer of the license to a person who is convicted of an Abkari offence or to a person who is otherwise disqualified from holding a license. The said conditions apply in the case of the functionary of a Club also. According to the learned Government Pleader, the license issued to a Club is under sub rule (4A) of Rule 13 of the Rules. The license has to be issued in the form that is prescribed by the Rules. As per the form, the license is to be issued in the name of the functionary of the Club, who is authorised to represent the same. Since there has been a change in the identity of the said person, for incorporating such change in the license, the fee under Rule 19(iv) is necessary to be paid. It is in view of the said mandate that, insistence on remitting the said fee has been stipulated by the 2nd respondent, Excise Commissioner. The learned Government Pleader therefore contends that, the learned Single Judge went wrong in setting aside the order of the Excise Commissioner.

5. Per contra, the learned Senior Counsel Sri.C.C.Thomas, contends that rule 19(iv) contemplates a situation where a change of name of the licensee is sought for. In the present case, there is no change in the identity of the licensee. Since the license under rule 13(4A) could be issued only to a Club that satisfies the requirements stipulated thereunder, the identity of the licensee continues to remain unchanged. Since the licensee is an organization that is inanimate, it has to be represented by a responsible functionary thereof. The applications in the present case were submitted only to change the names of the functionaries who were competent to represent the Clubs. Since change of the names of the functionaries does not result in a change in the identit