JUDGMENT - R.M. LODHA, J. :---Rule. Returnable forthwith. At the request of the learned Counsel, the writ petition is taken up for hearing at this stage. 2. The petitioner Somras Distillers, as a partnership firm was given three licences bearing Licence No. C.L. I., PL. L. and Rs.-2 by the competent authority for running the business in the manufacturing and sale of country liquor and Indian made foreign liquor. On 1-3-1993 there was a change in the constitution of the partnership firm inasmuch as two partners who were original partners in the partnership firm withdrew from the said partnership and four new partners were added. By the application dated 2-3-1993, the petitioner-firm prayed before the Commissioner, State Excise, that the two partners who have withdrawn from the partnership may be deleted from the licence and four new partners be added. Along with the application dated. 2-3-1993 the petitioner-firm annexed photo-state copy of the retirement-deed dated 1-3-1993 and affidavits of Shri Sundarlal Gupta and Rajendra Gupta, the partnership deed of reconstituted firm dated 2-3-1993 and the original licences. On 3-3-1993 the petitioner-firm deposited a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- vide Treasury Challan No. C-105 dated 3-3-93 as amendment fees for deletion of names of two partners and addition of names of four partners. By the order dated 17-4-1993 the State Government granted permission to the petitioner-firm for deletion of names of two erstwhile partners and addition of four new partners and the said permission was on the assumption that the requisite subject fee has been recovered by the Commissioner, State Excise, from the applicant. The petitioner-firm by the communication dated 2-6-1993 was informed about the grant of permission by the State Government for deletion of names of two erstwhile partners and addition of four new partners in the licence issued to the petitioner firm by the State Government on 17-4-1993 and the petitioner-firm was further directed to deposit the deficient amendment fees amounting to Rs. 10,75,000/- immediately so that necessary corrections may be made in the licences issued to the petitioner-firm. 3. The communication dated 2-6-1993 whereby the petitioner-firm has been asked to deposit the deficient fees for amendment in the licences amounting to Rs. 10,75,000/- is challenged by the petitioner-firm in this petition. 4. Mr. Jagtap, learned Counsel for the petitioner/firm, submits that the deficient fees for amendment in the licences amounting to Rs. 3. The communication dated 2-6-1993 whereby the petitioner-firm has been asked to deposit the deficient fees for amendment in the licences amounting to Rs. 10,75,000/- is challenged by the petitioner-firm in this petition. 4. Mr. Jagtap, learned Counsel for the petitioner/firm, submits that the deficient fees for amendment in the licences amounting to Rs. 10,75,000/- is sought by the respondent on the basis of amendment made in the Maharashtra Country Liquor Rules, 1973 which was amended on 16-3-1993 by the Maharashtra Country Liquor (Amendment) Rules, 1993 and since the application for amendment in the licences was made on 2-3-1993 and the aforesaid amendment is prospective, the respondents are not entitled to the deficient fee claimed in the communication dated 2-6-1993. 5. It is true that the application for deletion of names of two erstwhile partners and addition of names of four new partners was made by the petitioner/firm on 2-3-1993 and the amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- towards the amendment-fee in the licences was also deposited by the petitioner on 3-3-1993, but the fact remains that the permission was granted by the State Government for deletion of names of two erstwhile partners and addition of names of four new partners in the licences issued to the petitioner-firm on 17-4-1993. On the date when the permission was granted by the State Government for deletion of names of two erstwhile partners and addition of four new partners, the Maharashtra Country Liquor Rules, 1973 stood amended by the Maharashtra Country Liquor (Amendment) Rules, 1993. On 16-3-1993 the State Government issued the Maharashtra Country Liquor (Amendment) Rules, 1993 amending the Maharashtra Country Liquor Rules, 1973 at once, which reads as under:--- 1. These rules may be called the Maharashtra Country Liquor (Amendment) Rules, 1993. 2. In the Maharashtra Country Liquor Rules, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the said rules"), in Rule 3, in Sub-Rule (2) for the words, brackets, letters and figures "rupees fifty thousand (Rs. 50,000/-)" the words, brackets, letters and figures "rupees one lac fifty thousand (Rs. 1,50,000 shall be substituted. 3. In Rule 14 of the said rules, in Sub-Rule (2) for the letters, figures, brackets and words "Rs. 15,000 (Rupees fifteen thousand)" the letters, figures, brackets and words "Rs. 65,000 (Rupees sixty five thousand)" shall be substituted. 4. 50,000/-)" the words, brackets, letters and figures "rupees one lac fifty thousand (Rs. 1,50,000 shall be substituted. 3. In Rule 14 of the said rules, in Sub-Rule (2) for the letters, figures, brackets and words "Rs. 15,000 (Rupees fifteen thousand)" the letters, figures, brackets and words "Rs. 65,000 (Rupees sixty five thousand)" shall be substituted. 4. In Rule 24 of the said rules, in Sub-Rule (1-B) for the existing scale of fees the following scales shall be substituted namely:--- Rs. "(a) Town or village with population upto 5,000 6,000 (b) Town with population 5,000 and 10,000 above but below 10,000. (c) Town and city with population of 10,000 and above but below 2 lakhs. 20,000 (d) City with population of 2 lakhs 30,000 and above but below 10 lakhs (e) City with population of 10 lakhs 45,000 and above but below 20 lakhs (f) City with population of 20 lakhs 60,000 and above. 6. When on 16-3-1993 the Maharashtra Country Liquor Rules, 1973 stood amended by Maharashtra Country Liquor (Amendment) Rules, 1993, obviously the petitioner firm was required to pay the fee for amendment in the licence at the rate prevalent on 17-4-1993 when the permission was granted to the petitioner-firm by the State Government permitting deletion of two erstwhile partners and addition of names of four new partners. The relevant date for payment of requisite fee for amendment in the licence is not the date on which the application is made by the party seeking amendment of names in the licences but the date on which the permission is granted and in the present case admittedly the permission was granted by the State Government to the petitioner-firm for deletion of names of two erstwhile partners and addition of names of four new partners on 17-4-1993 and on that date the fee payable was in accordance with the Maharashtra Country Liquor (Amendment) Rules, 1993. There is no dispute that the deficient fee of Rs. 10,75,000/- has been claimed by the competent authority on the basis of the amended rules and that being admitted position, the communication dated 2-6-1993 asking the petitioner-firm to deposit an amount of Rs. 10,75,000/- towards the amendment fees in the licences cannot be faulted. 7. There is no dispute that the deficient fee of Rs. 10,75,000/- has been claimed by the competent authority on the basis of the amended rules and that being admitted position, the communication dated 2-6-1993 asking the petitioner-firm to deposit an amount of Rs. 10,75,000/- towards the amendment fees in the licences cannot be faulted. 7. The State Government in exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (u) of sub-section (2) of section 143 of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949, and in supersession of the rules published in the notification of the Commissioner of Excise, Bombay, No. 81-7/35, dated 29-1-1935, framed the rules called the Bombay Prohibition (Privileges Fee) Rules, 1954. Rule 6 of the said Rules 1954 reads as under:--- "6. Fees for admission in or withdrawal from the business of a partner--- The fee payable by any licensee for the privilege of allowing the admission of a partner in or the withdrawal of a partner from, the business under his licence shall, in respect of each partner admitted in, or withdrawn from, such business, be fifty per cent of the fee chargeable for grant or renewal or continuance of the licence whichever is higher. Provided that such fee shall in no case be less than Re.1." A plain reading of the said Rule 6 clearly shows that the fee payable by the licensee for the privilege of allowing the admission of a partner in or the withdrawal of a partner from the business under the licence shall in respect of each partner admitted or withdrawn from such business, be at 50% of the fee chargeable for grant or renewal or continuance of the licence whichever is higher. Therefore, in accordance with Rule 6, the petitioner-firm is required to pay the privilege fee for admission or withdrawal of each partner at the rate of 50% of the fee chargeable for grant or renewal or continuance of the licence as on 17-4-1993, the date on which the permission was granted by the State Government for withdrawal of two erstwhile partners and addition of four new partners. Yet again there is no dispute by the learned Counsel for the petitioner-firm that in the communication dated 2-6-1993 the petitioner has been asked to pay the deficient fee on the basis of the fee computed under Rule 6. 8. Mr. Yet again there is no dispute by the learned Counsel for the petitioner-firm that in the communication dated 2-6-1993 the petitioner has been asked to pay the deficient fee on the basis of the fee computed under Rule 6. 8. Mr. Jagtap, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submits that since the petitioner was required to deposit the requisite special fee in advance at the time of making the application, the relevant date for computation of said special fee for withdrawal of the two erstwhile partners or admission of four new partners, should be in accordance with the fee prevalent on the date of the application. The argument raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is devoid of any merit. Merely because at the time of making the application, the applicant is required to deposit the special fee for withdrawal of partner or admission of new partner, the relevant date for deposit of such fee would not be the date of application but rather the date on which the permission was granted, and since the permission was granted on 17-4-1993, and by that time the Maharashtra Country Liquor Rules, 1973 were amended by the Maharashtra Country Liquor (Amendment) Rules, 1993, the claim of the respondents for deposit of the fee in accordance with the amended rules cannot be said to be unjustified. 9. In the premises aforesaid, the writ petition is without any substance and is accordingly dismissed. Rule is discharged. No. costs. Petition dismissed.