1. Since all the aforesaid three writ petitions involve similar question of law, at the request of the respective parties, the arguments are heard together and are being decided by this common order.

2. The facts of the case of Ashok Kumar Devendra Meel & Party are taken as a leading case.

3. The petitioner firm was granted an exclusive privilege licence for the retail of IMFL, beer and country liquor in the Jaipur - Dausa group of the Excise Department for the period 1.4.2004 to 31.3.2005 for a sum of Rs. 1,75,33,33,333.33

4. The petitioner on acceptance of his bid made the requisite deposits and also furnished necessary bank guarantees.

5. The controversy arose when the respondent vide notification dated 5.8.2004 enhanced the permit fee per bulk litre on Indian made foreign liquor, Indian made beer and country liquor. The enhancement of permit fee is challenged by the petitioners in the aforesaid writ petitions on the ground that the permit fee as notified by the Excise Department in its excise policy for the year 2004 - 2005 constituted a part of the consideration for the Jaipur - Dausa group and in the most of the contract period the respondents have withdrawn the prevailing exemption on the permit fee qua IMFL/beer and by way of enhancement of the permit fee payable on per bulk litre of country liquor and the state Government in the most of the contract period cannot alter the terms of the contract entered into by the state government.

6. Mr. B.L. Sharma who is appearing for the petitioners submits that for the year 2004 - 2005, the permit fee payable for IMFL/beer would not exceed Re.1 per bulk litre for the year 2004 - 2005 and similarly that the permit fee for county liquor would not exceed Rs. 6 per bulk litre it is not open for the state Government to withdraw the exemption and enhance the permit fee as the contract has been duly executed between the state and the petitioner and the state Government is estopped to change/vary the terms and conditions of the contract.

7. Mr. Sharma further submits that the respondent state is bound to adhere to their own excise policy giving out the permit fee chargeable on IMFL, beer and country liquor for the year 2004 - 2005 and no change of policy in the excise year 2004 - 2005 would be permissible in law.

8. Mr. Sharma further submits that the action of the respondents is absolutely in contravention of provisions of Articles 19(1)(g) and 300 - A of the Constitution of India.

9. Mr. Sharma referred certain clause of excise policy of state Government for the year 2004 - 2005 and more particularly referred clause 10.2 of each of three licenses issued one each for I.M.F.L., beer and country liquor wherein it is stated that the provisions of Excise Act and the Rules will remain "Yatha Roop" and the word has been interpreted by the learned counsel for the petitioner "as they are". And it was submitted that the excise licence issued to the petitioner firm under section 24 of the Act of 1950 have a statutory character and the respondent cannot seek to vary the terms of the said statutory contract and by interpreting "Yatha Roop Se Lagoo Honge" , learned counsel for the petitioner demonstrates before this court that whatever law prevailing at the time of grant of contract and at the time of commencement of the contract, will only be applicable as it is.

10. Mr. Sharma further submits that the state Government has no power by resort to its power of delegated legislation under the Act of 1950 to make any changes in the payment of amounts to the state Government as determined on the basis of the bids made and accepted by the state government.

11. In support of his submissions Mr. Sharma referred a case of Excise Superintendent, Warangal v. Delux, reported in (2001) 9 SCC 497 wherein the Hon'ble the Supreme Court held that "the right of the licensee to operate that licence for the excise year gets crystalised and that right cannot be put to jeopardy during the subsistence of the excise year.