L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. ( 1 ) IN these four writ petitions, common questions of fact and law arise. Hence, they are disposed of through a common order. ( 2 ) THE petitioners in all the writ petitions were granted IL 24 licences. They have established when shops at the suburbs of vijayawada town. Through, separate orders dated 31-8-2003, the Prohibition and Excise superintendent, the 2nd respondent in all the writ petitions, had suspended the licences of the petitioners. The basis for the suspension is that the Prohibition and Excise inspector, Enforcement, Vijayawada, had inspected the shops of the petitioners on 22-8-2003 and during the course of inspection, he found that the Salesmen in the respective shops were found selling the various items of Indian Liquor at a price more than the Recommended Maximum retail Price (for short rmrp ). Stating that sale of liquors at a price higher than the rmrp constitutes violation of the provisions of A. P. Excise Act (for short the Act ) and the rules made there under, the licences of the petitioners were suspended in exercise of the powers under Section 31 of the Act. Crimes were also registered against the petitioners under Section 41 of the Act. The petitioners challenge the same in these writ petitions. ( 3 ) THE petitioners contend that there is no provision either in the Act or in the Rules made there under requiring a licensee of il 24 to sell the liquor at a particular price or at the retail price indicated on the bottles. It is their case that in the absence of such a requirement, suspension of licences and registration of cases is totally without jurisdiction. The petitioners also contend that having regard to the fact that various licence fees are fixed ranging from Rs. 3,00,000. 00 to rs. 12,30,000/- depending on the population, the licensees cannot be expected to sell the liquors at a stipulated price. It is also their contention that the fixation of RMRP is only for consumer awareness and is recommendatory in nature. ( 4 ) IN the common counter affidavit filed by the respondents, it is stated that there is specific condition in the counterpart agreement that the licensee shall abide by the conditions, provisions of the Act and the rules and the instructions issued by the commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, the 1st respondent, from time to time. ( 4 ) IN the common counter affidavit filed by the respondents, it is stated that there is specific condition in the counterpart agreement that the licensee shall abide by the conditions, provisions of the Act and the rules and the instructions issued by the commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, the 1st respondent, from time to time. It is stated that there is a definite purpose in stipulating the RMRP and violation of the same would entail penal consequences. According to the respondents, the RMRP includes a profit margin to the licensees ranging from 25 to 35% on various brands of liquor. Sale of liquors at a higher price is said to have resulted in reducing the purchasing capacity of the consumer. Reference is made to circulars dated 12-6-2001 and 10-1-2003 issued by the 1st respondent in this regard. The impugned action is also sought to be supported on the basis of Rule 11 -A of A. P. (Regulation of Wholesale Trade and distribution of Indian Liquor, Foreign Liquor, wine and Beer) Rules 1993 (for short regulation of Wholesale Trade Rules ) and clause kk of Rule 3 of A. P. Indian Liquor and foreign Rules, 1970 (for short the 1970 rules ). Fixation of different kinds of licence fee is sought to be justified on the basis of population. It is stated the difference in the licence fee does not have any bearing on the sales in view of the variation as to population. ( 5 ) SRI A. Jaganatha Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that there is no provision in the A. P. Excise Act and the Rules made there under, which mandates that a licensee of IL 24 or 17 shall sell any item of liquor at a particular price, be it RMRP or any other. According to him, licence cannot be suspended on the basis of the Circulars issued by the 1st respondent. He submits that such Circulars cannot override the provisions of the Act and the Rules. ( 6 ) LEARNED Government Pleader for prohibition and Excise submits that the cumulative effect of the stipulation as to rmrp in various Rules and the Circulars issued, by the 1st respondent from time to time, is that the licensees shall not sell any brand of liquor at a price higher than the rmrp. ( 6 ) LEARNED Government Pleader for prohibition and Excise submits that the cumulative effect of the stipulation as to rmrp in various Rules and the Circulars issued, by the 1st respondent from time to time, is that the licensees shall not sell any brand of liquor at a price higher than the rmrp. It is his case that Sections 3 and 4 of the Act confer ample powers on the 1st respondent to issue instructions and guidelines from time to time, for the purpose of implementation of the Act and the Rules; and even in the absence of a specific provision, it is competent for him to issue necessary instructions. He submits that licensees cannot be permitted to exploit the weakness of persons and extract amounts higher than the RMRP, while selling different items of liquor. ( 7 ) THE petitioners are IL 24 Licensees. Their licences were suspended through orders dated 31-8-2003 by the 2nd respondent. The only allegation against them is they have sold various items of liquor at a price more than the RMRP. Cases were also registered against the licensees. Except for minute details as to the brand of liquor and the price at which they were alleged to have been sold, the substance of all the orders is one and the same. It is beneficial to extract the relevant portion of one such order. It reads as under:"on 22-8-2003, at about 6-30 p. m. the pro and Excise Inspector Enforcement, vijayawada and staff and mediators surprised M/s. Red Lips Wines, ibrahimpatnam and found that the sales man of the shop at the counter has sold one Vin Malt Whisky 180 ml for Rs. 26. 00 i. e. , Rs. 0-50 more than rmrp and one Beer Bottle of heywards 5000 Beer of 650 ml for rs. 55-00 i. e, Rs. 3. 00 more than RMRP. The sales man on enquiry, revealed his name as Nakka Vijay, S/o Koteswara rao, R/o Damuluru. The Enforcement party found the brand of liquor and beer and sale price and RMRP rates as detailed hereunder. @@s. No. Brand Name rmrp Rate Rs. Sale Price Rs. 1. Vin Mallt Whisky 180ml 25-50 26-00 2. Heywards 5000 Beer, 650ml 52-00 55-00@@ hence a case in Cr. No. 100/2003-2004 u/s. 41 of A. P. Excise Act, 1968 was registered in Mylavaram Pro. and excise station against the Salesman and released on bail. @@s. No. Brand Name rmrp Rate Rs. Sale Price Rs. 1. Vin Mallt Whisky 180ml 25-50 26-00 2. Heywards 5000 Beer, 650ml 52-00 55-00@@ hence a case in Cr. No. 100/2003-2004 u/s. 41 of A. P. Excise Act, 1968 was registered in Mylavaram Pro. and excise station against the Salesman and released on bail. Therefore, the licensee of M/s. Red lips wines has prima facie failed to implement the RMRP rates and has violated the licence conditions wilfully. Hence, by virtue of powers vested in me U/s31 of A. P. Excise Act, 1968 being the licensing authority, I, a. V. V. S. N. Murthy, Pro and Excise superintendent, Krishna district, suspend the licence in Form IL 24 bearing No. 492/98-99, in the name and style of M/s Red Lips wines, ibrahimpatnam, held by sri Sri M. Satyanarayana Goud, s/o M. V. V. S. Murthy, R/o Vijayawada with immediate effect until further orders pending investigation in the public interest in the above case. " ( 8 ) THE basis for this action is said to be violation of Rule 11 of the Regulation of wholesale Trade Rules, Clause 2 of counterpart agreement and condition No. 10 of IL 24 licence. Therefore, it needs to be seen as to how far the said provisions enable the respondents to suspend the licences of the petitioners. Rule 11-A of the regulation of Wholesale Trade Rules reads asunder:"11-A. The Corporation (the A. P. beverages Corporation) shall arrive at the recommended maximum retail price in respect of each variety of liquor by loading its sale price by such percentage as fixed by the government, and indicate the same to the manufactures for printing on the labels. "rmrp is defined under the 1970 Rules in clause 3 kk, as under"3 (KK) recommended maximum retail price means the price to be indicated by the Andhra Pradesh Beverages corporation Limited for incorporation in each variety of label by the manufactures of Indian Liquor or brewers for the purpose of consumer awareness. "similar definition is found in Rule 2kk of the a. P. Distillery Rules 1970. ( 9 ) SO far as the clause in counterpart agreement and conditions of licence are concerned, they read as under:"counterpart Agreement to sell liquor, foreign liquor and beer (By il 24 licensee): 1/we do hereby affirm, agree and covenant with the licensing authority: (i ). . . . . . . . . ( 9 ) SO far as the clause in counterpart agreement and conditions of licence are concerned, they read as under:"counterpart Agreement to sell liquor, foreign liquor and beer (By il 24 licensee): 1/we do hereby affirm, agree and covenant with the licensing authority: (i ). . . . . . . . . (ii ). . . . . . (iii) That, I/we shall abide by all the general Conditions applicable to the sale of intoxicants and also the instructions issued by the commissioner of Prohibition and excise, in this regard from time to time. " ( 10 ) CONDITION No. 10 incorporated in IL 24 licence Rules reads as under:"the licensee shall not act in any manner prejudicial to the interests of the revenues of the Government. " ( 11 ) THE prosecution against the petitioners is resorted to under Section 41 of the Act. It reads as under:"penalty for offences not otherwise provided for: Whoever does nay act in contravention of any of the provisions of this Act or of any rule, notification or order made, issued or passed there under and not otherwise provided for in this Act shall, on conviction, be punished with imprisonment which may extend up to six months and with fine which may extend up to five thousand rupees. "for suspension of the licence, the respondents rely on their power under section 31 of the Act. ( 12 ) FROM a reading of the provisions and clauses referred to above, it is evident that there is nothing to indicate that a licensee is required to sell any liquor at a particular price. The definition of RMRP under rule 3kk of 1970 Rules, discloses that the purpose of indicating of RMRP is only to create consumer awareness. Once such prices are indicated on the respective commodities, the Rules stand complied with. Unless any specific provision is enacted prohibiting the sale of such commodities at a price higher or lower than RMRP, the respondents cannot be permitted to take any punitive action against the licensees. ( 13 ) THE 1st respondent had issued two circulars dated 12-6-2001 and 10-1-2003 in this regard. Unless any specific provision is enacted prohibiting the sale of such commodities at a price higher or lower than RMRP, the respondents cannot be permitted to take any punitive action against the licensees. ( 13 ) THE 1st respondent had issued two circulars dated 12-6-2001 and 10-1-2003 in this regard. In the 1st Circular, having referred to the instances of the IL 24 licensees selling the liquor at prices higher than RMRP, the 1st respondent had observed as under:"in the event of any violation in this regard, the licensee will be liable for suspension/cancellation of IL 24 licence under Section 31 of A. P. Excise act, read with Condition 10 of IL 24 licence and Para (2) of the Counterpart agreement. Besides the licensee will also be liable for prosecution under section 41 of the A. P. Excise Act. " ( 14 ) IN his circular dated 10-1-2003, the 1 st respondent had reiterated the contents of the 1st circular, and further observed as under:"keeping in view the above, all the officers are instructed to register cases of violation of RMRP under Section 41 of A. P. Excise Act 1968 and take action for suspension/cancellation of IL 24 licence under Section 31 of the A. P. Excise Act and also to launch prosecution in the court of law. " ( 15 ) AN attempt is made to justify these directions or instructions on the basis of the powers conferred upon the 1st respondent under Section 3 (2) and Section 4 of the Act. Section 3 is to the effect that the commissioner shall be competent to exercise all the powers of Controller under the Act and shall have the control of administration of Prohibition and Excise department. Section 4 mandates that the powers conferred on the Collector under the act shall be subject to the general control of the Commissioner. These provisions are in no way different from those conferring powers of superintendence and administrative control in any head of the department. ( 16 ) IT is settled principle of law that any rules framed by the Government are required to be in conformity with the provisions of the Act under which they are framed. Similarly, the Head of the department, who is conferred with the powers of superintendence and control, is required to act within the framework of the act and the Rules. Similarly, the Head of the department, who is conferred with the powers of superintendence and control, is required to act within the framework of the act and the Rules. In howsoever general terms the power of superintendence and control may have been conferred upon a head of the Department, such conferment does not enable such authority to issue instructions or to act contrary to the provisions of the Act and the Rules. The power to issue instructions from time to time is restricted to the extent of implementation of the provisions of the Act and the Rules such a power does not clothe the 1st respondent, to bring about a legal regime, parallel to the one contained under the Act and the Rules. If the Legislature of the State or its delegate, the Government, did not choose to make it obligatory for a licensee to sell the liquor strictly at RMRP, the 1st respondent cannot prescribe such an obligation in exercise of its power of superintendence or administrative control. Therefore, the instructions contained in circulars dated 12-6-2001 and 10-1-2003, in so far as they exhort its subordinates to suspend the licences and initiate prosecution against the licensees, in case the licensees sell the liquor at a cost higher than RMRP, are clearly ultra vires the provisions of the act and the Rules. Consequently, any action taken in pursuance thereof cannot be sustained. ( 17 ) THERE is another way of looking at the matter. Rule 11-A of the Regulation of wholesale Trade Rules or the definition of rmrp under Rule 3kk of the 1970 Rules does not restrict their application to IL 24 licences alone. Both the licences are issued under the same sets of Rules. It is not in dispute that the same liquor is supplied to these two kinds of licensees, by the same authority. It is not in dispute that liquors are sold at different rates in E. ars and restaurants from those in retail shops. It is ununderstandable as to how the 1st respondent has treated the instances of sale of liquor at prices in excess of RMRP for IL 24 licensees alone as constituting offences and violations, entailing suspension and cancellation, and why the same instances occurring in Bars and Restaurants licensees under IL 17 do not lead to such conseuences. It is ununderstandable as to how the 1st respondent has treated the instances of sale of liquor at prices in excess of RMRP for IL 24 licensees alone as constituting offences and violations, entailing suspension and cancellation, and why the same instances occurring in Bars and Restaurants licensees under IL 17 do not lead to such conseuences. ( 18 ) IF at all the 1 st respondent was of the view that the licensees cannot be permitted to sell the liquor at a price in excess of rmrp, the only course open to him was to bring it to the notice of the Rule Making authority or the Legislature, as the case may be, impressing upon them to incorporate necessary provisions in the Act or the Rules. Unless a licensee is informed in advance or notices the existence of a provision prohibiting sale in excess of RMRP, he cannot be penalised on the basis of instructions issued by the 1st respondent. ( 19 ) IN the counter affidavit, an attempt is made to demonstrate as to how the sale of the liquor at a price in excess of RMP would result in loss to the Government. The effort was to link to the said violation to condition 10 of the licence extracted above. The relevant portion of the counter affidavit reads as under:"it is humbly submitted that on account of higher price demanding by the licenses the purchasing capacity of the consumer has been diminishing and thereby the revenues of the State are affecting, For example a consumer goes to a liquor shop with Rs. 100. 00 in his pocket to purchase two (2) Beer bottles. If the licensee demands Rs. 60. 00 per each bottle the consumer will buy only One (1) beer bottle, consequently, the licensee will become unjust enrichment and there will be a loss to the Govt. Revenue. If the consumer purchases two (2) Beer bottles the Govt. will get excise duty, sales tax etc. , on two (2) bottles. In an area where there is competition the licensees are selling liquor at a rate less than RMRP and getting benefits from manufactures in the shape of discounts/compliments etc. The licensees are resorting to sell liquor for more than RMRP in small places where the consumers are poor and illiterates by exploiting their illiteracy and weakness. In an area where there is competition the licensees are selling liquor at a rate less than RMRP and getting benefits from manufactures in the shape of discounts/compliments etc. The licensees are resorting to sell liquor for more than RMRP in small places where the consumers are poor and illiterates by exploiting their illiteracy and weakness. Hence, the competent authorities are insisting the licensees to sell liquor not more than RMRP. "if at all anything, this portion of the pleading on behalf of the respondents discloses their desperation. It is rather surprising that the respondents, who are marking every effort to boost the sale of liquor in every hook and corner of the State, express their concern over the exploitation of poor and illiterates. The respondents appear to be oblivious to the fact that each and every step taken by them, be it in the matter of increase in the sale of quantities or increase in the number of shops, is nothing but an attempt to exploit the weakness of an unfortunate vice of citizens. That, however, is a larger issue, which is outside the scope of this writ petition. ( 20 ) NOT a word is said about the action in cases where the liquor is being sold at a price less than RMRP. If the reasoning adopted by the respondents, which is evident from the portion extracted above, is to be accepted, it appears that their object is to encourage a citizen to consume as higher quantity of liquor as possible. It needs to be noted that these steps are being taken right under the nose of Article 47 of the constitution of India, which mandates that the State shall endeavour to bring about prohibition of consumption of intoxicating drinks and drugs, which are injurious to health. ( 21 ) IT is a matter of record that IL 24 licences are granted at various places on payment of different amounts of licence fee ranging from Rs. 3,00,000/- to Rs. 12,30,000. 00 depending on the population of the local authority in which shops are to be located, when there is such phenomenal variation in the licence fee while granting permission to sell the same category of products, the respondents cannot insist on the licensees to sell the liquor in every place at the same price. 3,00,000/- to Rs. 12,30,000. 00 depending on the population of the local authority in which shops are to be located, when there is such phenomenal variation in the licence fee while granting permission to sell the same category of products, the respondents cannot insist on the licensees to sell the liquor in every place at the same price. ( 22 ) LEARNED Government Pleader has made an attempt to persuade this court that the writ petitions are not maintainable in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in durga Prasad v. Chief Controller, Imports and Exports ( AIR 1970 SC 769 ). The context in which the observations came to be made in the said judgment is totally different. Having suspended the licences on a non-existent ground, the respondents cannot plead that the writ petitions cannot be maintained. ( 23 ) VIEWED from any angle, this court does not find any legal or factual basis for the impugned orders. The writ petitions are accordingly allowed and the impugned orders are set aside. No costs.