A. GOPAL REDDY, J. ( 1 ) AS the relief sought for and subject matter involved in all the writ petitions is one and the same, it is felt expedient and convenient to dispose of all the writ petitions by this common order. ( 2 ) THE petitioners in this batch of writ petitions obtained IL-17 or IL-24 licence to set up liquor shops at various places like vinukonda, Sattenapalli, Bobbili, Nuziveed, pithapuram, Satyavedu in the State of andhra Pradesh. The grant of IL-24 and il-17 licences in the State are governed by a. P. Indian Liquor and Foreign Liquor rules, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as rules ). ( 3 ) IT is relevant to note here some of the provisions of the A. P. Excise Act. 1968 (for short the Act ) section 15. Sale or buying of excisable article without licence prohibited: (1) No person shall sell or buy any intoxicant except under the authority and in accordance with the terms and conditions of a licence granted in this behalf. Provided that a person having a licence to draw toddy from an excise tree, may sell such toddy to a person licensed to buy toddy under this Act without obtaining a licence for such sale but subject to such restrictions and conditions as the Commissioner may, by general or special order, specify. Section 17: Grant of exclusive privilege of manufacture, etc. : (1) Subject to the provisions of Sec. 28 and any rules made in this behalf, the government may, subject to such conditions as they may deem fit to impose, grant for a fixed period to any person at any place a lease or licence or both either jointly or severally for the exclusive privilege, (i) of manufacturing or of supplying by wholesale or of both; or (ii) of selling by wholesale or by retail/or (iii) of manufacturing or of supplying by wholesale, or of both, and of selling by retail, any liquor or other intoxicant within any such area in the State as may be specified in the said order. Explanation: A lease shall not take effect until the Collector or any other competent officer has issued a licence under this Act. (2) The Government may confer on any officer the power mentioned in subsection (1 ). 28. Forms and conditions of licence, etc. Explanation: A lease shall not take effect until the Collector or any other competent officer has issued a licence under this Act. (2) The Government may confer on any officer the power mentioned in subsection (1 ). 28. Forms and conditions of licence, etc. (1) Every permit issued or licence granted under this Act shall be issued or granted on payment of such fees, for such period, subject to such restrictions and conditions, and shall be in such form and shall contain such particulars, as may be prescribed. 29. Power to take security and counterpart agreement: Subject to such rules as may be prescribed, any authority granting licence under this act may require the licensee. (a) to give security for the observance of the terms of his licence, and (b) to execute a counterpart agreement in conformity with the tenor of his licence. ( 4 ) AS per the excise policy 2002-2003 issued in G. O. Ms. No. 109, Revenue (Ex. II), dated 11-3-2002 the Government enhanced the licence fee basing upon the population-upto 10,000 Rs. 3 lakhs, from 10,001 to 50,000 Rs. 4,50 lakhs and 50,001 to 3,00,000 Rs. 8. 25 lakhs. The petitioners, who are all existing licensees doing business from the previous excise year 2001-2002, made applications for renewal under Rule 26-A of the Rules. Due to enhancement of licence fee as stated above, petitioners requested to renew the licence at the old rates as the population of the places mentioned above has not been published under the Census act When all the petitioners have agreed to pay the rent at the existing rates as on the date of counter-part agreement proposal dated 27-03-2002 the authorities refused to renew the licence as the population of the above places increased as per the provisional Census published under the census Act and claimed licence fee at the enhanced rates. In view of the same, they moved this Court by way of present writ petitions contending that as the population of the Census has not been finalized, provisional Census cannot form basis for increase of licence fee. ( 5 ) IT is relevant to note that the government in G. O. Ms. No. 283 dt. 28-5-2002 amended the proviso to Rule 3 (q) as under: in Rule 3, in clause (q), in the proviso for the expression "population as published in the 2001 Census" the expression. ( 5 ) IT is relevant to note that the government in G. O. Ms. No. 283 dt. 28-5-2002 amended the proviso to Rule 3 (q) as under: in Rule 3, in clause (q), in the proviso for the expression "population as published in the 2001 Census" the expression. "population as provisionally published in Census of india 2001," shall be substituted. Though some of the writ petitions were filed subsequent to the issuance of the above G. O. but in none of the writ petitions the petitioners questioned the amendment made to the G. O. ( 6 ) THIS Court in W. P. No. 7666 of 1991 and batch dated 26-06-1992 held that excise authorities cannot enhance the licence fee basing upon the provisional population figures while upholding the contention of the petitioners that unless the population figures are finally published the authorities cannot enforce the enhancement of the licence fee and the licences have to be renewed basing upon the population figures of 1981 Census till the population figures of 1991 are finally published. ( 7 ) THE respondents in answering to the writ petition took the stand that fixation of licence fee is as per the Government Policy made in the Act and also as per the Rules, as such fixation of licence fee cannot be subject matter of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The government in G. O. Ms. No. 173 Revenue (Ex. 11) Department dated 07-03-2001 fixed the licence fee for IL24 outlets for the year 2001-2002 as under: upto 10,000 2. 85 lakhs 10,001-50,000 4. 30 lakhs 50 ,001-3,00,000 8. 25 lakhs 3,00,001-700,000 10. 35 lakhs above 7,00,000 12. 30 lakhs the Government through G. O. Ms. No. 174, revenue (Ex. II) Department, dated 7-3-2001 decided to permit on licence (Bars) in all municipal towns and Tourism centers (except places of religious tourism) as identified by the Tourism Department and fixed the rates as under: upto 10,000 3. 85 lakhs 10,001-50,000 5. 30 lakhs 50,001-3,00,000 9,25 lakhs 3,00,001-7,00,000 11. 35 lakhs above 7,00,000 13. 30 lakhs pursuant to the issuance of above G. Os. the commissioner of Prohibition and Excise issued the instructions for grant of licence/renewal through his Circular CR. No. 540/ 2001/cpe/g-2 dated 08-03-2001, which reads as under: 1. 85 lakhs 10,001-50,000 5. 30 lakhs 50,001-3,00,000 9,25 lakhs 3,00,001-7,00,000 11. 35 lakhs above 7,00,000 13. 30 lakhs pursuant to the issuance of above G. Os. the commissioner of Prohibition and Excise issued the instructions for grant of licence/renewal through his Circular CR. No. 540/ 2001/cpe/g-2 dated 08-03-2001, which reads as under: 1. Under Rule 26-A of A. P. I. L. and f. L. Rules, 1970, it is hereby decided to fix 22. 03. 2001 as the last date for submission of renewal application forms in complete shape for the 2001-2002 lease year in respect of i. L. 24. I. L. 17 and I. L. 20. 2. All the renewal applications should be addressed directly to the Prohibition and Excise superintendent concerned as provided under Rule 26-A of A. P. I. L. and F. L. Rules, 1970 together with the following: (A) Challan in original in support of having paid 1/3rd licence fee (as revised) in case of retail outlets (I. L. 24), half of the licence fee (as revised) in case of Star Hotels (I. L. 17) and licence fee in lump sum in case of Clubs (I. L. 20 ). (B) B. G. /f. D. R. /nsc, as the case may be for the remaining amount of licence fee. (C) Counter part Agreement duly signed by the licensee. In case of I. L. 24 licences the Prohibition and Excise Superintendent will issue formal renewal proceedings positively within 3 days of receipt of renewal application. In case of I. L. 17 and I. L. 20 licences the concerned prohibition and Excise superintendents have to submit renewal proposals to the commissioner of Prohibition and excise by 26. 03. 2001, so that renewal orders can be issued immediately. All such I. L. 17 and I. L. 20 licensees, who file their renewal applications in full shape before 22-3-2001 shall continue their business till receipt of orders on their applications. All the Prohibition and Excise superintendents are requested to send daily Progress Reports regarding renewal of licences in the enclosed format w. e. f. 26-3-2001 till completion of renewals. Any deviation from these instructions will be viewed seriously. ( 8 ) THE Government in G. O. Ms. No. 283 dated 28-05-2002 amended the Indian liquor and Foreign Liquor Rules, 1970. All the Prohibition and Excise superintendents are requested to send daily Progress Reports regarding renewal of licences in the enclosed format w. e. f. 26-3-2001 till completion of renewals. Any deviation from these instructions will be viewed seriously. ( 8 ) THE Government in G. O. Ms. No. 283 dated 28-05-2002 amended the Indian liquor and Foreign Liquor Rules, 1970. As per Rule 25 (1) of the Rules annual licence fee for each of the licences except IL-17 and il-24 referred to in Rule 23, shall be as -amended from time to time at the rates as shown in the schedules appended to the rules and the said licence fee for a lease year shall be paid before the commencement of the lease year to which it relates in one lump sum or in two equal instalments or in the manner as notified from time to time. In view of the amendment made to Rules, all the licensees have to pay the licence fee basing upon the population figures published under the Census 2001. Once the petitioners executed the counter-part agreement they are bound to pay the licence fee as fixed by the Government. As the fixation of the licence fee and collection of the same is as per the counter-part agreement, which is one of the conditions of the licence, present writ petitions are not maintainable under Article 226 of the constitution of India. The petitioners in w. P. Nos-11765 and 11769 of 2002 whose licences have been granted as per the rules after paying the required licence fee basing upon the provisional population of 2001 census published and on entering into agreement they cannot plead that they are entitled to pay the licence fee as per the population of 1991 Census. As the population of Sattenapally Municipal town is more than 50,000; they are liable to pay the licence fee at the rate of 8. 25 lakhs and 9. 25 lakhs respectively and the amended rules issued in G. O. Ms. No. 283 are applicable to the excise year 2002-2003 and prayed for dismissal. ( 9 ) SRI A. Jagannatha Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioners contended that when the petitioners filed applications for renewal of licence under Rule 26-A of the Rules the authorities cannot insist for payment of enhanced licence fee as per the Circular issued by the Commissioner. No. 283 are applicable to the excise year 2002-2003 and prayed for dismissal. ( 9 ) SRI A. Jagannatha Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioners contended that when the petitioners filed applications for renewal of licence under Rule 26-A of the Rules the authorities cannot insist for payment of enhanced licence fee as per the Circular issued by the Commissioner. As the population of the town stated supra has not been finally published in 2001 Census the provisional population published is subject to variation. In view of the same, insisting enhanced licence fee is arbitrary and illegal. The rules amended in G. O. Ms. No. 283 will not have any retrospective operation and the same will not be applicable for the excise year 2002-2003 as held by this Court in w. P. No. 7666 of 1991 and batch. ( 10 ) SRI O. Manohar Reddy learned counsel for the petitioners contends that rule 24 prescribes the period of licence and rule 25 prescribes licence fee to be collected and the population is the basis for fixation of licence fee and in view of the definition of population under Rule 3 (q) the same has to be taken into consideration for fixation of such population. Since the Census figures are not finally published, the latest Census 2001 cannot be found basis for fixation of licence fee. Amendment made to the proviso to Rule 3 (q) in G. O. Ms. No. 283 will not have retrospective effect and the same will be applicable to the future excise years. To support his contention he placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in excise Supdt. v. Warangal Dist. Deluxe Bar. He further contends that provisional population is only published to invite the objections and unless final publication is made the same cannot be formed basis for charging enhanced licence fee. ( 11 ) SRI E. Ayyapu Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner in W. P. No. 5615 of 2002 contends that population of the Kallur as published in the 2001 Census is only 2,67,739 and when the same was merged with the Kurnool Municipality the petitioners herein filed W. P. No. 2677 of 2002 before this Court and the same is pending. In the event if it is allowed the licensees are entitled to refund of the excess amount so collected. In the event if it is allowed the licensees are entitled to refund of the excess amount so collected. ( 12 ) LEARNED Government Pleader for excise drawn my attention to the various provisions of the Act and the rules. He would contend that the petitioners have no fundamental right for grant of licence, and the Act or rules do not contemplate either provisional publication or final publication. As payment of licence fee is only a contractual obligation in terms of counterpart agreement, the same cannot be enforced under Article 226 of the Constitution as held by this Court in Rajaheel wine Merchants v. Commissioner of Excise; Sri Rama Wines v. Excise Superintendent, Adilabad and Meka nageswara Rao v. The Deputy Commissioner of excise, Guntur. Similarly renewal of licence is at the discretion of the respondents. Once the petitioners agreed to pay licence fee as fixed by the Government present writ , petitions are not maintainable. ( 13 ) IN exercise of the powers conferred by section 72 r/w Sections 941,12,13,14,15 and 28 of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act , 1968 (A. P. Act 17/1968) the Government made rules, which govern grant of licences under il-24 and IL-17 licences. By substituting rule 3 of A. P. Excise (Lease of Right to Sell indian Liquor, Foreign Liquor and Beer in retail under IL-24 Licence) Rules, 1998 issued under Sections 28 and 29 of the Act through G. O. Ms. No. 152 dated 30-3-2002 the a. P. Excise (I and FL Retail sale of conditions) Rules, 1993 were not made applicable for the excise year 2002-2003 in the case of licences granted in Form IL-24 under the Rules. Proviso to Rule 2 prescribes renewal of licence for the year 2002-2003 on payment of requisite licence fee. Rule 24 of the Rules says that licence will commence from 1st April and ending with 31st March of the succeeding year. Proviso to Rule 25 (1) contemplates payment of annual licence fee to IL 17. Sub-Rule (9) of Rule 25 envisages the annual licence fee for the licences in form IL 24, which can be amended from time to time at the rates shown in the schedule appended to the Rules. Rule 26-A contemplates renewal of the licences. Rule 26-A (1) (b) envisages execution of counterpart agreement by the licensee before issuance of a licence in IL-17 and il-24. Rule 26-A contemplates renewal of the licences. Rule 26-A (1) (b) envisages execution of counterpart agreement by the licensee before issuance of a licence in IL-17 and il-24. Rule 26-A (2) envisages that in case the application for renewal is made as prescribed in sub-rule (1) and if the renewal is not duly renewed and returned before the licence expired, the licensee shall have the right to carry on business till its renewal is refused and the fact intimated. If the application is not made within time it shall not however be open to the licensee to continue the business on the expiry of the licence. ( 14 ) THE word population defined in rule 3 (q) as substituted in G. O. Ms. No. 234 dated 30-3-2001 reads thus: population means the figure of population as officially published in the latest Census. Provided that for the lease year 2002 2003 the population would mean the figures of population as published in the 2001 Census. Rule 3 (r) reads thus: village/town/city, etc. shall be defined in the latest census. Provided that for the year 2002-2003 they shall be defined in the 2001 census. The Government through G. O. Ms. No. 283 dated 28-5-2002 amended Rule 3 (q), which reads thus: in rule 3, in clause (q), in the proviso, for the expression "population as published in the 2001 Census" the expression, "population as provisionally published in Census of india 2001," shall be substituted. ( 15 ) IN the backdrop of the various provisions referred to above and in view of rival contentions the point that emerges for consideration in this batch of writ petitions is whether the provisional population published can form basis for collection of licence fee for the excise year 2002-2003. ( 16 ) IN order to appreciate the rival contentions it is necessary to have a glance at the cases on which reliance is placed by the learned Counsel on either side. ( 17 ) W. P. NOS. 7666 of 1992 and batch is a case where the petitioners were granted licence for selling liquor during the years 1987 to September, 1992 and they have paid licence fee on the basis of population as per 1981 Census. The respondents demanded enhanced licence fee from them on the basis of population according to 1991 Census. 7666 of 1992 and batch is a case where the petitioners were granted licence for selling liquor during the years 1987 to September, 1992 and they have paid licence fee on the basis of population as per 1981 Census. The respondents demanded enhanced licence fee from them on the basis of population according to 1991 Census. Questioning the same batch of writ petitions were filed contending that the Census figures of 1991 are not published and even if they are published, the enhanced licence fee can be collected only from the subsequent excise year i. e. from the excise year 1992-93 but not from the excise year 1991-92. Following the Division Bench judgment in w. A. No. 192 of 1983 dated 21-3-1983 and p. Srinivasa Rao v. Commercial Tax Officer this court in W. P. No. 7666 of 1992 and batch by setting aside the notice held that the respondents would be entitled to collect the enhanced fee on the basis of 1991 Census after they are published. ( 18 ) IN P. Srinivas Rao s case when the entertainment tax was claimed at the rate of 11% instead of 9% basing upon the Census 1981, the Division Bench after following the judgment in W. P. Nos. 9600 and 9601 of 1981 dated 29-12-1981 held that 1981 Census has not been published in accordance with law and as such cannot form basis for determining and demanding the entertainment tax from the petitioner by upholding the claim of the petitioners that the respondents are not entitled to demand the entertainment tax at the rate of 11%. The division Bench in W. P. Nos. 9600 and 9601 of 1981 had an occasion to consider the expression published within the meaning of the Explanation to Section 4-A of the entertainments Tax Act. The Division Bench after going through the meaning to the word publication came to the conclusion that the figures of the population are not published and the learned Government Pleader also stated that an endorsement was made to that effect by the Director of Census that he is prohibited from revealing the population figures to the Press or to any other agents and therefore, the figures cannot be furnished. Under those circumstances, mere compilation of provisional figures is printed in a booklet, unless they are made known to the public cannot be said to have been published. Under those circumstances, mere compilation of provisional figures is printed in a booklet, unless they are made known to the public cannot be said to have been published. This Court in W. P. No. 7666 of 1992 and batch curiously without going into the reasons for such conclusions on which it placed reliance held that since the booklet relied on by the respondents deals only provisional population totals and it is not the final publication of Census of 1991, the department cannot collect enhanced fee based on such provisional figures, but however, entitled to collect the enhanced fee on the basis of 1991 Census after they are published. But in the case on hand it is evident that population figures 2001 Census were already published on 19-7-2001. ( 19 ) IN Excise Supdt. v. Warangal Dist. Deluxe Bar (supra) the Supreme Court considered whether enhancement of excise fee could be made applicable retrospectively from the beginning of the year or not. The apex Court after considering the various provisions of the Act and the rules while upholding the Division Bench judgment of this Court held that excise officials cannot collect increased licence fee enhanced during the middle of the excise year and they are entitled to collect the same with effect from 1-10-1990 i. e. beginning of the next excise year. The same is misplaced to the facts of the present case. ( 20 ) IN the case of Rajaheel Wine Merchants (supra) Division Bench of this Court considered enhancement of label fee from rs. 5,000/- to Rs. 25,000. 00 and held as follows: ". . . . . The power to amend the rule during the currency of the licence also has to be admitted as the agreement itself contemplates that during the currency of the licence also the government has got the power to enhance the same. When the parties knowing fully well about the terms of the agreement and having agreed for the terms of the agreement, this Court feels, that the petitioners shall be prevented from agitating that the government cannot collect the enhanced fee during the currency of the licence. The amendments under any circumstances cannot be said to be violative of Articles 14,19 and 21 of the constitution. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The amendments under any circumstances cannot be said to be violative of Articles 14,19 and 21 of the constitution. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The mere fact of having power to amend the rule or an irregularity committed by the Government does not mean that it has got power to amend the rule with retrospective effect when there are no valid grounds to do so. In this case, we feel that the retrospective effect of the amended rules cannot be allowed to stand as the retrospective fact was given only to ratify their illegal action and therefore we feel that part of the Rule giving retrospective effect only has to be struck down. The G. O. amending the rules had to be given prospective effeqt from the date of its publication. . . . . " ( 21 ) IN Sri Rama Wines case (supra) this court in para-7 held as under: ". . . . . The population of a place varies due to the lapse of time and also for the reason of merger of another area into the concerned village/town/ municipality. Many other situations also can be visualized. These situations cannot be anticipated on the date of grant of licence. Since the licence fees was payable depending upon the density of the population, the Act gives the power to the authorities to require the licensee to pay the enhanced licence fee as and when levied, even during the currency of the period of licence. This power having been given by the Act itself, it cannot be said that it runs counter to the licence granted under the Act. The counter-part undertaking has to be treated as one of the conditions of licence. The undertaking is also in consonance and tenor of the licence. A single Judge of this Court in M/s. Swagath. Miryalaguda v. Excise Superintendent, Nalgonda district (1993 (2) An. W. R. 601) considering the power of the authorities to collect the enhanced licence fees, held: "on the other hand, I am inclined to think that the undertaking is in consonance with Rule 25 read with the Schedule and effectuates the spirit and purpose of the said Rule. Miryalaguda v. Excise Superintendent, Nalgonda district (1993 (2) An. W. R. 601) considering the power of the authorities to collect the enhanced licence fees, held: "on the other hand, I am inclined to think that the undertaking is in consonance with Rule 25 read with the Schedule and effectuates the spirit and purpose of the said Rule. The undertaking is nothing more than a recognition and acknowledgment of the liability created by the rule itself and it is meant to cover a situation arising from the immediate nonavailability of official population figures. Such undertaking does not in any way run counter to the Act or to the Rules. In the absence of a specific provision enabling the excise officials to re-fix and revise the demand for licence fee, the excise authorities can legitimately rely upon this undertaking and enforce the acknowledged liability in terms of the undertaking. Obtaining an undertaking in a situation like this can be treated as an incidental or ancillary function exercised by the excise Authorities invested with the power to administer the Act and to recover the licence fee. I am unable to say that while obtaining such undertaking and acting in terms of the undertaking, the respondents have outstepped their authority or acted contrary to the statutory mandate. " we are therefore, of the view that a combined reading of Secs. 28, 29 and rule 25 and 30 of the Act and the Rules respectively, makes it abundantly clear that the counterpart agreement is in accordance with the Act and the rules, investing with the power in the authorities to recover the enhanced licence fees during the licence period and thus is enforceable under law. " 21-A. Similar view was taken by the division Bench in the case of Meka nageswara Rao (Supra ). ( 22 ) THERE is no quarrel with the proposition of law that the petitioners have no fundamental right in the trade of liquor and it is the exclusive privilege of the State. Similarly, payment of licence fee by the licensee is a contractual obligation and the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the constitution cannot be used for avoidance of such obligations voluntarily entered into as held by the Apex Court and also this court in various pronouncements. Similarly, payment of licence fee by the licensee is a contractual obligation and the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the constitution cannot be used for avoidance of such obligations voluntarily entered into as held by the Apex Court and also this court in various pronouncements. ( 23 ) WHAT all Rule 3 (q) defines is; population means the figure of population as officially published in the latest Census: provided that for the lease year 2002-2003 the population would mean the figures of population as published in the 2001 Census. Whether the provisional population as published by the Census can be taken as population as published in 2001 Census or not. ( 24 ) IT is not disputed that Census of India 2001 Provisional Population totals incorporated in the booklet itself says that the paper-2 is a publication that deals with rural-urban distribution of population on the basis of provisional population totals of the State. It is released in continuation of paper-1, which was published on 27-3-2001. While Paper-I was released immediately after the conclusion of Census Operations, giving district-wise figures of population, growth rate, density, sex ratio, literacy etc. , paper-2 deals with the same aspect in regard to Rural-Urban frame of the State and the same was published on 19-7-2001. The publication will be useful to the data users. ( 25 ) IT is relevant to note the expression published which means made known to the public. When exactly it is made known to the public or published will differ according to the different circumstances. Stroud s Judicial Dictionary, where it is stated that publication is accomplished in a variety of ways according to the subject matter. A news paper or periodical is published when it is offered to the public by the proprietor. In Webster s dictionary the word publish is to the following effect: "to send forth as a book, newspaper, musical piece, or other printed work, either for sale or for general distribution". In Chamber s dictionary the word publish is to the following effect: "to make public, to divulge, to announce, to proclaim, to issue to the public, to produce and offer for sale (originally any article, now books, newspapers, etc.), to put into circulation". ( 26 ) IN the light of the discussion as above, this Court while disposing of W. P. Nos. ( 26 ) IN the light of the discussion as above, this Court while disposing of W. P. Nos. 7666 of 1992 and batch has not laid down any principles of law on which the learned counsel for the petitioners placed much reliance. In the absence of any interpretation of provisions of Census Act or excise rules which govern the collection of licence fee as such made by this Court in the above batch, the ratio if any will be applicable to the facts in the above cases, but will not have any binding precedent for deciding the issue involved in the present batch of cases. ( 27 ) IN view of the amendment to rule 3 (q) by adding proviso by G. O. Ms. No. 151 dated 30-3-2002, the Commissioner of Excise issued instructions on 8-3-2002 for grant of renewal of licence that the population as published in the Census of india 2001 has to be taken into consideration. ( 28 ) THE Government in G. O. Ms. No. 109 revenue (Ex-II) Department dated 11-3-2002 decided to revise the licence fee in case of two lower slabs only for the year 2002-2003 and fixed the licence fee of Rs. 3 lakhs where population is upto 10,000 and Rs. 4. 50 lakhs where population is 10,001-50,000. The said amendment was effected by substituting the proviso and the same was communicated to all the Prohibition and Excise superintendents for taking necessary action through Circular dated 13-3-2002. The relevant portion of the said circular reads as under: all such licensees who filed their renewal applications in full shape on or before 26-3-2002 shall continue their business till receipt of renewal orders from the Prohibition and Excise superintendent on their application. They are also informed that, they should adopt the latest Census figures 2001 for the purpose of levying and collection of licence fee in respect of licences under all categories. It is gathered that the latest Census figures for 2001 have been published in respect of Municipal Corporations, municipalities and Towns, whereas in respect of rural areas, the Census figures are yet to be published. It is likely that it may take some more time for publication of Census figures in respect of rural areas. As such they are instructed to obtain an undertaking on a non-judicial paper of Rs. 100. It is likely that it may take some more time for publication of Census figures in respect of rural areas. As such they are instructed to obtain an undertaking on a non-judicial paper of Rs. 100. 00 (format of undertaking is enclosed) with regard to payment of differential licence fee as and when the Census figures are published. However, wherever the Census figures for the year 2001 have been already published, the same must be obtained from the district Collector/chief Planning officer and adopted for levying licence fee. ( 29 ) IN view of the same, all the licensees were called upon to submit their agreements on a non-judicial stamp paper. Instead of that the petitioners have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court and obtained interim directions to renew their licences. Substitution of proviso to Rule 3 (q) does not indicate either provisional publication or final publication. The asinine consequence of accepting the interpretation placed by the learned counsel will amount to amending rule 3 (q) by adding final before the word population . It is well settled that while interpreting the provision in its true meaning the Courts cannot supplement unless there is any ambiguity as such. When population is clearly defined, namely the figures of population as officially published in the latest census is inclusive of any publication of population figures. Any other interpretation restricting it to that of final figures published in the Census Act will amount to amendment of the Rule 3 (q) of the Rules. When the word is defined to bear number of inclusive meanings in the sense in which the word is used the particular provisions must be ascertained from the scheme or the Rules, the language of the provisions and the object intended to be served thereby. From a reading of the said amendment of population unequivocally leads to one conclusion that for the Excise year 2002-2003 the enhanced fee will be levied basing upon the population figures as published in 2001 Census. ( 30 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioners made an abortive attempt to convince the court that by issuing G. O. Ms. No,283 dated 28-5-2002 the State Government was conscious of the fact only final publication can be the basis for determining and demanding the licence fee. Either rule 3 (q) or proviso as inserted through g. O. Ms. No. 151 dated 30-3-2002 do not indicate the final publication. No,283 dated 28-5-2002 the State Government was conscious of the fact only final publication can be the basis for determining and demanding the licence fee. Either rule 3 (q) or proviso as inserted through g. O. Ms. No. 151 dated 30-3-2002 do not indicate the final publication. As such to avoid ambiguity it is necessitated to issue g. O. Ms. No. 283 dated 28-5-2002. It is only a mere clarification as there was an attempt by the licensees to misconstrue the amendment made through G. O. Ms. No. 151. In view of the same, the population figures published is mentioned as provisional population. In the absence of any rule to the effect that population means as finally published, any publication can be a guiding factor for fixing the rentals basing upon the population figures so published. ( 31 ) IN view of the discussion and for the foregoing reasons, I do not see merits in the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in the absence of any final publication of Census, provisional population as published cannot be formed basis is devoid of merit. ( 32 ) WHEN the Commissioner refused to renew the licence, the petitioners by invoking the jurisdiction of this Court obtained interim orders for renewal whereas the licensees are entitled to carry on the business till the renewal is made or refused as per Rule 26-A (2) of the Rules. In view of the fact that the licence fee is enhanced basing upon the population figures when the licensees were called upon to pay the enhanced licence fee and enter into counterpart agreement, the present writ petitions have been filed and the renewals were made as per the interim directions of this Court. ( 33 ) IT is well settled that none should be allowed to suffer for act of Court i. e. pursuant to the interim order granted by this Court the licences were renewed and agreements were entered. While making the final orders it is the duty of the Court to correct the damage caused by the interim order. In view of the same, the contention advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that once the renewal is made, the authorities are estopped from bringing amendment and making applicable the enhanced licence fee to the existing licensees is devoid of merits. ( 34 ) COMING to writ petition Nos. In view of the same, the contention advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that once the renewal is made, the authorities are estopped from bringing amendment and making applicable the enhanced licence fee to the existing licensees is devoid of merits. ( 34 ) COMING to writ petition Nos. 11765 and 11769 of 2002 the petitioners who have paid 1/3rd licence fee basing upon the population as provisionally published in the census of India 2001 and entered into counter-part agreement cannot now come forward and say that the licence fee so collected by the authorities is arbitrary or illegal. ( 35 ) COMING to W. P. No. 5615 of 2002 in the event the writ petition filed by the petitioners earlier i. e. W. P. No. 2677 of 2002 challenging inclusion of the Kallur Gram panchayat in the Kurnool Municipality is being allowed and consequent to the same if the Kurnool town population is reduced to below 3 lakhs the petitioners therein are entitled to refund of the licence fee collected from them basing upon the provisional population or the same can be adjusted in the future licence fee. ( 36 ) THE writ petitions are accordingly dismissed. No costs.