JUDGMENT A.N. Varma, J. - By a notification dated 31-5-79 published in U.P. Gazette Extraordinary on the same date. Rule 3 of the U.P. Licence for possession of Denatured Spirit and Specially Denatured Rules, 1976 was amended with effect from 1-6-79 whereby the existing licence-fee for a licence in Form FL-41 was enhanced from Rs. 100/- per bulk litre to Rs. 25% ad valorem payable in advance for the issue of licence. 2. The petitioner contends that the amended rule could not legally apply to the licenses granted or renewed prior to 1-6-79. The demand of the respondents based on the amended rule with respect to the petitioner's licence in Form FL-41 renewed prior to that date was, therefore, wholly without jurisdiction. 3. Learned Counsel is right. The submission is supported by a decision of this Court directly in point in writ petition No. 5274 and other connected petitions of 1979 decided by a Bench of this Court on 17-1-1983 following an earlier Bench decision in which petition No. 312 of 1979 - M/s. U.P. Surgical Industries v. State of U.P. decided on 20-4-1982 : reported in 1982 EFR 447. 4. The facts relevant for the decision of this case are that the petitioner had a licence in Form FL-41 for the right to possess denatured spirit and specially denatured spirit for use as a solvent in the manufacture of paints, varnishes and thinners etc. Initially the petitioner was granted this licence on 7-5- 1979. Subsequently the licence was renewed for the period 1-4-78 to 31-3-79. Still later the licence was renewed on 2-5-79 for the period 1-4-79 to 31-3-80. The petitioner had, in accordance with the rules as they stood prior to their amendment on 31-3-79, paid licence fee at the old rates, i.e., Rs. 100/- per bulk litre. The respondents, however, took the stand that the amended rule enhancing the licence fee shall be applicable even to existing licences and unless the petitioner deposited licence fee ad valorem at the rate of 25% he will not be permitted to lift the monthly quotas. 5. On these facts, the petitioner has prayed for a direction to permit him to lift the monthly quotas of denatured spirit on the existing licence. As mentioned above, the contention of the petitioner is squarely supported by the two decisions cited above. 5. On these facts, the petitioner has prayed for a direction to permit him to lift the monthly quotas of denatured spirit on the existing licence. As mentioned above, the contention of the petitioner is squarely supported by the two decisions cited above. This Court has ruled in these cases that since the amended rule was enforced from 1-6-79, the fee prescribed thereunder could not be made applicable to the licences already granted. It was further held that with respect to the quantity covered by the licence, no demand could legally be made on the basis of the amended rule. Of course if the petitioner applied for a fresh grant the amended rule would squarely be applicable. 6. With respect we entirely agree. The rule has been amended but not retrospectively. The amendment is with respect to substantive law. Unless, therefore, it expressly provides, it must be presumed to be prospective in operation. 7. Let us apply the dictum to the present case. The petitioner's licence for 1-4-79 to 31-3-80 was renewed by the Excise Commissioner on 2-5-79 i.e. even before the enforcement of the new rule. The excise authorities were, therefore, entirely wrong in preventing the petitioner from lifting his monthly quota of denatured spirit on the existing licence. 8. The petition must, therefore, be allowed. By the interim order dated 27-11-79 the respondents were restrained from taking any further action against the petitioner provided he furnished bank guarantee for the amount sought to be recovered from him as licence fee under the amended Rule 3(b). The petitioner was also directed by the same order to furnish bank guarantee every month before lifting the quota of denatured spirit. The bank guarantees pertaining to the quantity of denatured spirit lifted by the petitioner under his existing licence for the period 1-4-79 to 31-3-80 shall be liable to be discharged. 9. In the result, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The respondents are restrained from insisting on the petitioner paying licence fee with respect to his licence in Form FL-41 for the period 1-4-79 to 31-3-80 on the basis of the amended rule. We further direct that the bank guarantees furnished by the petitioner in pursuance of the interim order granted by this Court on 27-11-1979 with respect to the quotas lifted under the existing licence of the petitioner valid till 31-3-80 shall stand discharged. We further direct that the bank guarantees furnished by the petitioner in pursuance of the interim order granted by this Court on 27-11-1979 with respect to the quotas lifted under the existing licence of the petitioner valid till 31-3-80 shall stand discharged. The petitioner shall be entitled to his costs from the respondents.