S. Manikumar, J.

1. While considering the correctness of the orders of rejection of the applications, submitted for renewal of FL.3 licence for year 2015-16, with reference to Rule 21 of the Tamil Nadu (Licence & Permit) Rules, 1981 and the objection of the Department of Prohibition and Excise, Chennai, that belated applications submitted for renewal of FL.3 licence cannot be considered, vide common order in W.P.Nos.34214 of 2015 etc., batch of writ petitions dated 10.06.2016, writ Court, at paragraph Nos.5 to 7, has ordered, as hereunder.

"5. At this stage, it has to be pointed out that rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of the parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but seek their remedy promptly. No person is going to benefit by belatedly filing application for grant or renewal of license. Only in cases where the delay is on account of malafide reasons, and when delay has not been explained satisfactorily, the authorities would be justifying in holding that the delay cannot be condoned. However, in the instant cases, no such observation or averment has been made in the impugned orders. That apart, the Tamil Nadu Liquor (Licence and Permit) Rules, 1981, has not fixed any outer time limit as found in other tax statutes like Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax, Customs Act or Central Excise Act. Therefore the authority viz., the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise is empowered to condone the delay by examining the facts.

6. I have carefully examined the facts of each case and found that in no case there is any mala fide intention on the part of the petitioner to belatedly file the application and all of them have been granted license more than ten years ago and it has been periodically renewed. It is also brought to my notice that application fee for renewal of license has been paid well within the stipulated time and there is no delay. Therefore, this Court is of the view that renewal application has to be considered on merits and should not be rejected on the ground of delay.

7. In the result, all the Writ Petitions are allowed and the delay in filing the application for renewal is condoned. The third respondent is directed to consider the petitioners' application for renewal of FL3 License, in accordance with law, and pass orders within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, M.P.Nos.1 to 3 of 2015 are closed."

2. Following the above order, made in W.P.No.34214 of 2015 etc., dated 10.06.2016, similar writ petition in W.P.No.35254 of 2015, has been allowed on 30.08.2016, on the same lines.

3. Correctness of the orders made in the batch of writ petitions, has been assailed in W.A.Nos.1511 and 1518 of 2017. Similarly, on the same grounds, order made in W.P.No.35254 of 2015, dated 30.08.2016, is challenged in W.A.No.1519 of 2017.

4. As facts, submissions and grounds of challenge made in the above writ appeals are common, they are taken up together and disposed of by this common order.

5. Emphasis has been made by Mr.M.Elumalai, learned Government Advocate, on the sentence but, in no case, after the expiry of the licence, the licencing authority can admit an application' and that the licencing authority, has no authority, to entertain an application submitted, after the expiry of the date on which, the licence, expires. He submitted that an application for renewal, has to be made within 30 days, before the expiry of the licence and the power to condone delay can be exercised, if only an application is submitted, within 30 days, from the last date, on which, an application of FL3 licence, has to be filed, till the date of expiry of licence and not beyond that date. In nutshell, applications filed between 1st March to 31st March of every year alone, can be entertained, provided good and sufficient cause is shown.

6.