RAMANUJAM J. :- Since the points involved in all these petitions are the same, they are dealt with together.

2. As the facts in all the cases are substantially the same, it is enough if we deal with the facts in the first case, that is, W.P. 465 of 1978. The petitioner in W.P. No. 465 of 1978 is one Satish Mazumdar, who has adopted the affidavit filed by one N.S. Mani in W.Ps. 463 and 464 of 1978 which have already been disposed of by one of us on 9-2-1978. The petitioner in W.P. 465 of 1978 was a holder of liquor permit issued by the State of Tamil Nadu since September 1974 and that permit expired on 20-1-1978. On 3-2-1978, he applied for the renewal of the said permit in accordance with the Madras Liquor (Licence and Permit) Rules 1960, hereinafter referred to as the rules, in the prescribed form. Just before the renewal application was filed, certain modifications were effected in the said rules by G.O.Ms. 3495 Home dated 31-12-1977 published on 1-1-1978. Rule 10(B)(1) of the Rules relating to the grant of permits on grounds of health was substantially altered. Under the new rule -

(1) Only persons who are 45 years of age and above on the date of the application can apply for permits to consume liquor on grounds of health, and (2) Every applicant shall be examined by a Medical Board consisting of the Dean of the local Medical College, who will be the Chairman, a Psychiatrist and a local Doctor specialising in alcohol cases.

3. The petitioner who was 42 years of age on the date of the application, apprehending that his application for renewal will be rejected on the basis of the rules as amended by G.O.Ms. No. 3495 Home dated 31-12-1977, has approached this court for the issue of a writ declaring the amended rules as void and for mandamus directing the respondents herein to consider and grant the renewal of his permit in accordance with the rules relating to such renewals as they stood before 31-12-1977 on the following three grounds :-

(1) G.O.Ms. No. 3495 Home dated 31-12-1977 which amended the relevant rules with effect from 1-1-1978 is not retrospective in character and, therefore, it cannot apply to pending applications;

(2) that the rules as amended with effect from 1-1-1978 are ultra vires the Prohibition Act in so far as it is intended not to facilitate the grant of personal permit in accordance with the scheme and object of the Act, but to deter persons from applying for or being granted such permits.

(3) That the rules as amended enable the authorities to refuse renewal of liquor permits merely on the ground of age and the classification based on age had no reasonable nexas to the purpose sought to be achieved by the Prohibition Act and that, therefore, the classification based on age violates Arts.14 and 19(1)(f) of the Constitution.

4. For appreciating the above contentions, it is necessary to trace briefly the history of legislation relating to prohibition in the State of Tamil Nadu. In the year 1936, purporting to exercise legislative power under Entry 31 of List II of the Government of India Act, 1935, the Madras Legislature enacted the Madras Prohibition Act, 1937. The preamble to the said Act stated that it was expedient to bring about prohibition, except for medicinal, scientific, industrial or such like purposes, of production, manufacture, possession, export, transport, purchase, sale and consumption of intoxicating liquors and drugs in the State of Madras. In the statement of objects and reasons it is stated -

"The Bill penalises all traffic and consumption of liquor and intoxicating drugs but provides (1) for the exemption of certain articles which may contain alcohol but which the medical profession need for their work, such as, certain forms of cod liver oil and the like, or which may be needed for any industrial or scientific purposes or any purpose other than as a beverage; (2) for permission being granted under licences to medical men and others to deal on prohibited articles, it is necessary for