Judgment :- First among these original petitions, O.P.No 9285/2000 has been filed by the petitioners in the other original petitions jointly. In the light of the interim order passed, this original petition has almost become infructuous. Therefore, the other original petitions are considered. 2. All the petitioners are having FL 3 licences for the year 2001-2002 and those are to expire on 31/3/2002. These licences were granted as per the interim directions issued in OP No 9285/2000, the first among this batch. They have to get the licences renewed. 3. Petitioners in O.P.No 7355/2002 are partners of a firm called ‘M/s Hotel Maharani, Piravom’ which is having an FL – 3 licence, Ext P1. Apart from the petitioners, there are three other partners. They have remitted the entire dues in respect of that licence granted to them for the year 2001-2002. None of them has got any arrears in respect of that licence. But, the second petitioner who did have a partnership business for the conduct of arrack shops during 1993-94, has defaulted payment of abkari arrears. This is an admitted position. Because of that default on the part of the second petitioner in remitting such abkari arrears, Ext. P3 amendment to the rule is pressed into service and consequently, the petitioners cannot get Ext. P1 licence renewed. Therefore, Ext P3 amendment is challenged. 4. By this amendment a proviso is added to Rule 13(A)(5) of the Foreign Liquor Rules to the effect that “Provided further that no defaulter of abkari arrears due to the Government shall be permitted to renew the licence unless he produces from the Excise Department a certificate to the effect that he has cleared fifty percent of the abkari arrears pending at the time or renewal of the licence”. 5. According to the petitioners, the second petitioner who had committed default in paying abkari arrears when he was granted a licence for arrack shops in 1993 along with certain others, did have only ten percent interest in that partnership. Ext P1 licence cannot be denied to be renewed, the petitioners contend, by reason of default of a person having only a ten percent interest in that partnership which had acquired an abkari licence in the year 1993-94. The other parties including the first petitioner who did not commit any default in any amount are also thus denied the licence, on the strength of Ext P3. The other parties including the first petitioner who did not commit any default in any amount are also thus denied the licence, on the strength of Ext P3. To the extent Ext. P3 amendment provides for denial of licence, in such circumstances, is arbitrary. 6. It is further contended that this proviso is added to Rule 13A which deals with certain conditions for grant of licence. The condition regarding the renewal does not fit in Rule 13A. Therefore, this amendment is totally misplaced, Accordingly, that amendment cannot be acted upon to deny renewal of Ext. P1 licence from 1/4/2002 onwards. 7. In effect, by reason of introduction of proviso to Rule 13A of foreign Liquor Rules, the Government is attempting to create a charge on the licence. On that ground also, this amendment is bad. 8. O.P. No 7356/2002 is filed by one Vijaya Kumar who is a Proprietor of Hotel Keerthy, Koothattukulam. He had been granted FL- 3 licence (Ext P1) as already mentioned above, for the year 2001-2002 which is to expire on 31/3/2002. Hotel keerthy is a proprietor concern. There is no default so far as this licence is concerned. But, he had been a partner in abkari business in the year, 1993 along with second petitioner in O.P. No 7355/2002 and others. Admittedly, there was default in paying the abkari dues by the firm which conducted abkari business in that year in which petitioner is also a partner. On the strength of the petitioner’s default as a partner in paying the abkari dues payable in the year, 1993/1994, the amendment is being pressed against him to deny renewal of Ext P1 licence to his proprietor concern. He urges the same contentions as in OP No 7355/2002. 9. Petitioners in OP No 7357/2002 are the partners of Hotel Ashoka, Alappuza Ext P1 – FL-3 licence was granted to that hotel as already mentioned above. There are no arrears to that hotel as already mentioned above. There are no arrears in respect of that hotel. But, the second petitioner herein is none other than the second petitioner in O.P. No 7355/2002, who is one among the defaulters in the abkari business in 1993-94 as detailed above. On the strength of his default, the partnership firm is being denied renewal of Ext P1 licence from 1/4/2002 pressing into service the impugned amendment. But, the second petitioner herein is none other than the second petitioner in O.P. No 7355/2002, who is one among the defaulters in the abkari business in 1993-94 as detailed above. On the strength of his default, the partnership firm is being denied renewal of Ext P1 licence from 1/4/2002 pressing into service the impugned amendment. These petitioners also urge the same contentions as urged by the petitioners in OP No 7355/2002. 10. Rule 13A of the Foreign Liquor Rules contemplates that no licence of any of the descriptions shall be issued in case the situations mentioned under the said rule including the proviso is present. The licences include FL-3 licences as possessed by the petitioners. Of course, the rule is with regard to issuance of licence. However, licence is issued always confining to one year commencing from April first of the respective year until 31st of March, in the succeeding year. That licence does not have any validity beyond 31st of March concerned. If the business is to be continued, necessarily, a fresh licence has to be obtained from first of April, onwards. It is really an issuance of a fresh licence for the continuance of the business. Whenever such licence is issued to the existing licensee it is termed as renewal. Apart from it being so understood commonly, there is no proviso for renewal. Renewal is not referred to in the rules except as mentioned in the proviso newly added by the impugned amendment. Rule 13 provides for issuance of a licence and the conditions regarding the issuance are as provided in Rule 13(A). The requirements in terms of Rules13 and 13(A) have to be satisfied even for the alleged renewal or reissuance of licence in respect of the existing licencees. Therefore, the renewal of licence is also the same as issuance of new or fresh licence. So, there arises no circumstances of wrongly adding the new proviso by reason of the amendment impugned in rule 13. The circumstance mentioned in the new licence cannot be granted to a person who had committed default in other types of abkari business, In other words, even a new FL-3 licence cannot be granted to a person who had committed earlier a default in toddy business or any arrack business unless 50% of the arrears is paid. The circumstance mentioned in the new licence cannot be granted to a person who had committed default in other types of abkari business, In other words, even a new FL-3 licence cannot be granted to a person who had committed earlier a default in toddy business or any arrack business unless 50% of the arrears is paid. Therefore there is nothing illegal in placing the proviso by Ext P3 impugned amendment in Rule 13 A of the Foreign Liquor Rules. 11. The next question is whether by reason of arrears of one partner, the licence in favour of the firm can be denied. Ext.P1 licence in O.P. 7355/2002 was granted in favour of one Narayanan Nair and Subash, the petitioners. They are styled as the Managing Partners of Hotel Maharani, Piravom. As among them, Narayanan Nair referred to in Ext. P1 is none other than the second petitioner. Therefore, Ext.P1, if to be renewed shall be in the name of Narayanan Nair and Subash and not in the name Subash alone or in the name of any other partners. If it is otherwise, it will have a look of a new licence , and a new licence will come under the new proviso to Rule 13(3) added as per the notification dated 20th February, 2002 that no FL-3 licence shall be granted hereafter. Therefore, there is no question of fresh licence being granted either in favour of the first partner or other partners excluding the second petitioner, the defaulter. When the renewal of licence (Ext.P1) granted in favour of Narayanan Nair and Subash is to be considered, necessarily it has to be examined whether all or of them had committed default in remitting abkari arrears. Even though Narayanan Nair, the second petitioner is having only ten percent interest in the partnership of Abkari business in 1993-94, he is a defaulter. He is a co-licenses in terms of Ext.P1. He has admittedly defaulted payment of abkari dues in the year, 1993-94 and has not paid fifty percent of the arrears. Necessarily, the newly added proviso as per the impugned amendment-Ext. P3 shall be attracted. 12. The condition imposed by Ext.P3 amendment that defaulters cannot be permitted to renew licence is not in any way arbitrary. Government is bound to protect the revenue due. Necessarily, the newly added proviso as per the impugned amendment-Ext. P3 shall be attracted. 12. The condition imposed by Ext.P3 amendment that defaulters cannot be permitted to renew licence is not in any way arbitrary. Government is bound to protect the revenue due. Government can very well deny grant of privileges to persons who have committed default in paying revenue in respect of similar privilege. There is nothing illegal, unreasonable or arbitrary in such provisions. 13. Unfortunately, the petitioners have no case before me that insistence to remit fifty (50)% of the arrears without any nexus to the actual quantum of arrears is arbitrary or discriminatory. Therefore, I need not examine, what would have been the fate of a challenge in that line made in the absence of such contention. 14. There is yet another aspect as well. All these petitioners were granted Ext.P1 licences marked in these original petitions for the year 2001-02, as per the interim order dated 30/3/2001 in CMP No. 17028/2001 in OP No. 9285/2000 E, which the petitioners themselves submit has become infructuous. Licences were directed to be issued “Without insisting payment of fifty percent of the abkari arrears”. As per an earlier interim order dtd. 30/3/2000 in CMP No.15485 of 2000 in OP No. 9285 of 2000 E licences were directed to be issued on condition that “the petitioners should not be insisted at present to comply with the direction for payment of 50% of the Abkari arrears……….” . Thus the petitioners in these original petitions got licences for the years 2000-01 and 2001-02 without remitting 50% of the Abkari arrears. O.P.No. 9285/2000 was filed on 24/3/2000. By that time, the notification introducing the impugned amendment at least when they obtained the second interim order to get the licence for the year, 2001-2002. Inspite of that, they did not challenge the amendment in time. They have attempted to challenge the amendment only on 18/3/2002 in the original petitions filed in March 2000, whereas the amendment was issued in March 2000, almost two years ago. In para three of O.P.No. 7355/2002 it is averred that this amendment “had come to the notice of the petitioners only recently”. It can hardly be believed from the mouth of Abkari business men as the amendment is touching their business. Thus there is laches also on the part of the petitioners in challenging the amendment. 15. In para three of O.P.No. 7355/2002 it is averred that this amendment “had come to the notice of the petitioners only recently”. It can hardly be believed from the mouth of Abkari business men as the amendment is touching their business. Thus there is laches also on the part of the petitioners in challenging the amendment. 15. There is also no basis for the contention that arrears are made a charge on the licence. Remittance is insisted for renewal. If arrears are not remitted to the extent indicated in the amendment no renewal will be granted. So there arises no question of a charge on a non-existent licence. 16. The petitioner in O.P.No.7356/2002, the licensee himself is a defaulter in the abkari business of 1993, though he is a proprietor of a separate concern – Hotel Keerthy, Koothattukulam. When the petitioner is admittedly a defaulter in payment of abkari dues for the abkari business conducted in 1993, necessarily he will come within the fours of the newly added proviso as per Ext.P2 which is same as Ext.P3 in O.P.No.7355/2002. 17. The facts of the case in O.P.No.7357/2002 are exactly similar to the facts in O.P.No.7355/2002 as the second petitioner, the self same Narayanan Nair who had committed default in 1993-94 abkari business is a co-licensee as is revealed by Ext.P1 licence granted in favour of Narayanan Nair and k.J.Thomas as Managing Partners of M/s. Hotel Asoka, Alappuzha. Necessarily, that proviso shall have application to Ext.P1 also when the renewal is taken up. 18. Incidentally, it has to be mentioned that when renewal of licences had been granted based on interim orders in OP No. 9285/2000, which is dismissed, necessarily that licences will have no efficacy in the eye of law. So the position is that they did not have legal and valid licences otherwise entitled in law for the last two years. Consequently, grant of one, even if arrears in question being remitted, will be new licences which cannot be granted in the light of newly substituted proviso to rule 13(3) of the Foreign Liquor Rules. 19. Ext.P3 amendment in O.P.Nos.7355/2002 and 7357/2002 which is same as Ext.P2 in O.P.No.7356/2002 is perfectly reasonable. The Original Petitions are accordingly dismissed. No costs.