V. V. S. RAO, J. ( 1 ) THE four petitioners were granted licence in Form IL-24 under A. P. Indian Liquor and Foreign Liquor Rules, 1970 (hereafter called the Rules ) during the year 1998-99. The licences are being renewed from time to time. According to the petitioners, population of Dhone village as per 2001 census is 46,611 and, therefore, as per Rule 25 of the Rules, the licence fee to be paid is rs. 4,50,000/- per annum. The respondents, however, reckoned the population of other villages namely, Dharmavaram, Dhorapalli, Gosanipalli, Yerraguntla and venkatanayunipalli, as population of Dhone village on the ground that these are the hamlets of Dhone and demanded licence fee of Rs. 8,25,000/- per annum at the time of renewal of licence for the excise year 2002-2003. The petitioners along with others filed W. P. No. 5663 of 2002 seeking appropriate declaration. The said writ petition was dismissed by this Court. In the meanwhile, the District collector, Kurnool, published a notification in Kurnool District Gazette dated 20-6-2002 by which revenue villages were re-organised in accordance with Gram panchayat Act and all the above five villages became independent villages not connected with Dhone village. ( 2 ) AGGRIEVED by the order of this Court in W. P. No. 5663 of 2002, the petitioners preferred W. A. No. 603 of 2003. The Division Bench confirmed the order of the learned single Judge (V. V. S. Rao, J.) observing that the Gazette Notification issued by the District Collector separating five hamlet villages of Dhone is only valid for 2003-04 and not for 2002-03. ( 3 ) AFTER dismissal of the writ petition and writ appeal, the second respondent issued a notice dated 13-6-2003 calling upon each of the petitioner to pay licence fee at Rs. 8,25,000/- for the years 2002-03 and 2003-04. The petitioners were also informed that if the amount is not paid within seven days from the date of receipt of the notice, action will be taken for adjustment of bank guarantees/fdrs executed by the licensees and for cancellation of licence as per the Rules. All the petitioners were served with similar notices of even date. Challenging the same, the present writ petition is filed. This Court, at the admission stage itself - heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri E. Ayyapu Reddy and the learned Govt. Pleader for Excise. All the petitioners were served with similar notices of even date. Challenging the same, the present writ petition is filed. This Court, at the admission stage itself - heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri E. Ayyapu Reddy and the learned Govt. Pleader for Excise. Learned counsel for the petitioners relies on the certificate issued by the mandal Revenue Officer, Dhone dated 10-3-2003 as well as Gazette notification dated 20-6-2002 issued by the District Collector under A. P. Districts (Formation) Act, 1974 in support of the contention that as observed by the Division Bench of this Court in W. A. No. 603 of 2003, re-constitution/ re-determination of revenue villages will be effective from 2003-04 and, therefore, the impugned demand notice so far as the same seeks to collect licence fee at Rs. 8,25,000/- even for the excise year 2002-03 is illegal and unsustainable. ( 4 ) LEARNED Govt. Pleader submits that the District Collector issued only preliminary notification under sub-sections (4) and (5) of Section 3 of the a. P. Districts (Formation) Act and has not yet issued final notification forming new revenue villages of Dharmavam, Dhorapalli, Yerraguntala, Gosanipalli and venkatanayunipalli and, therefore, the said notification dated 20-6-2002 is of no avail. He also placed reliance on a communication of the Chief Electoral officer, Govt. of Andhra Pradesh addressed to the Chief Commissioner of Land administration (which was re-transmitted by the latter to all the District collectors ). According to the said letter, in view of the setting up of delimitation Commission under the provisions of the Delimitation Act, 2002, which started functioning from 16-7-2002, all the Collectors should ensure that there shall be no changes in the administrative units till the completion of the process of delimitation. Learned Govt. Pleader would urge that in view of the said letter, the District Collector, Kurnool has not issued any final notification under Section 3 of the A. P. Districts (Formation) Act. Therefore, all the five villages continue to be hamlets of Dhone revenue village whose population is admittedly 56,276 as per 2001 census. Alternatively, the learned govt. Pleader submits that as per Rule 3 (q) of the Rules, population can be population as per the latest census. Therefore, all the five villages continue to be hamlets of Dhone revenue village whose population is admittedly 56,276 as per 2001 census. Alternatively, the learned govt. Pleader submits that as per Rule 3 (q) of the Rules, population can be population as per the latest census. He placed before me the latest census figures - habitation-wise, revenue village-wise and Gram Panchayat-wise for dhone revenue village and submits that as per the population of Dhone revenue village, the habitations of Dhone, Dharmavaram, Dhorapalli, Gosanipalli, yerraguntla and Venkatanayunipalli is 56,276, which was accordingly considered while fixing licence fee treating the entire Dhone revenue village as one unit. He urges that any subsequent changes in the formation of new administrative units have no relevance in determining the population in accordance with Rule 3 (q) of the Rules. ( 5 ) TWO questions that require to be considered are whether the respondents are in law bound to fix licence fee taking into consideration the population as per the latest census only ignoring any subsequent reduction of population of village/town/city by reason of the State action in re-defining the units like villages, panchayats, revenue villages? The second question is what is the effect of the notification issued by the District Collector dated 20-6-2002 in purported exercise of power under sub-sections (4) and (5) of Section 3 of the a. P. Districts (Formation) Act. FIRST QUESTION as per Rule 25 of the Rules, every licensee is required to pay annual licence fee as prescribed in the Schedule annexed to the Rules. Item 8 of the Schedule prescribes annual licence fee for issue of licence in Form IL-24 for establishing a retail liquor shop. Where the population of a village/town/city does not exceed 10,000, the licence fee is Rs. 3,00,000/-; where the population is above 10,000 but does not exceed 50,000, the licence fee is Rs. 4,50,000/-; and Rs. 8,25,000/- if the population is above 50,000 and does not exceed 3,00,000. The licence fee is Rs. 12,34,000/- if the population of a village/town/city is above 3,00,000. How to assess the population of a village or town or city? It is not left to be decided and it is taken care of by the delegated legislation. Be it noted, the Rules made by the executive in exercise of legislative delegation of powers, form part of the parent Act itself. How to assess the population of a village or town or city? It is not left to be decided and it is taken care of by the delegated legislation. Be it noted, the Rules made by the executive in exercise of legislative delegation of powers, form part of the parent Act itself. The rules should be treated as such and interpreted as such as main provisions of the Act. Rule 3 (q) of the Rules defines population as to mean population of village/town/city as per the latest census. It is not denied nor disputed that the population of Dhone village which consists of Dhone, Dhorapalli, gosanipalli, Yerraguntla and Venkatanayunipalli habitations is 56,276 as per 2001 census. This is proved by 2001 census for Dhone Mandal in Kurnool district, a copy of which is placed before me as well as the certificate issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer dated 14-3-2003. When the delegated legislation mandates to assess the population based on the latest census of a village/town/city, it is not permissible for any licensing authority or any excise official to assess the population in a different manner. That subsequent to issue of licence or during the currency of the licence, the population of a village/town/city got altered or changed by reason of administrative action forming new units like villages/towns/cities, is not a justification to fix population in an indiscriminate manner. If such power is conceded to the licensing authority, it would work adverse to the interest of the licensees. If during the currency of IL-24 licence, some new villages or panchayats merge in the village/town, the licensing authority may not increase the licence fee on that ground. That is not permissible. The Legislature i. e. , delegated legislation has not left any discretion to the licensing authority. The licence fee has to be prescribed by the licensing authority i. e. , Commissioner of Excise relying only on the latest census figures and not otherwise. This Court, however, observes that if the State Government itself in exercise of delegated power expresses its desire specifically to take into consideration the subsequent changes which altered the population figures, it is permissible to the licensing authority to follow the same. That is not the case before this court. This Court, however, observes that if the State Government itself in exercise of delegated power expresses its desire specifically to take into consideration the subsequent changes which altered the population figures, it is permissible to the licensing authority to follow the same. That is not the case before this court. There is no provision either in the A. P. Excise Act, 1968 or the Rules which enables a licensing authority to enhance or reduce the licence fee depending on the changes in the population figures between one decennial census and another. It is only for the Legislature to look into the matter and take appropriate steps to amend the law. This Court cannot give any direction or mandamus to the Legislature or delegated legislative body to make law. Therefore, the submission of the learned Govt. Pleader for Excise commends itself to this Court. SECOND QUESTION when the second respondent demanded licence fee at Rs. 8,25,000/- from the petitioners for the excise year 2002-03, they filed a writ petition being w. P. No. 5663 of 2002 contending that the five hamlets of Dhone are different panchayats and, therefore, they cease to be part of Dhone revenue village. This court, by order dated 4-4-2003 in W. P. Nos. 5663, 5883 and 6026 of 2002, did not countenance the submission. This Court after referring to the provisions of the a. P. Excise Act and the A. P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, held as under. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A revenue village or part of such village which is separate and declared as panchayat does not cease to be part of the revenue village from which it was carved out for the purpose of panchayat. It must be remembered that constitution of panchayat is different from constitution or continuation of village as a revenue village for the purpose of revenue accounts. A panchayat is relevant for the purpose of local administration whereas a revenue village is relevant for the purpose of revenue administration. The rule making authority was very much aware of this distinction and, therefore, has taken abundant care to define a village as revenue village for the purpose of the A. P. Indian Liquor and Foreign Liquor Rules, 1970. Aggrieved by the order dated 4-4-2003 passed by this Court, the petitioners preferred W. A. No. 602 of 2003. The rule making authority was very much aware of this distinction and, therefore, has taken abundant care to define a village as revenue village for the purpose of the A. P. Indian Liquor and Foreign Liquor Rules, 1970. Aggrieved by the order dated 4-4-2003 passed by this Court, the petitioners preferred W. A. No. 602 of 2003. The Division Bench dismissed the writ appeal observing that the Bench reiterates the reasons given by the learned single judge. It appears, the notification issued by the District Collector dated 28-6-2002 (it must be 20-6-2002) was brought to the notice of the division Bench in support of the contention that Dhone revenue village was divided and re-constituted into six separate revenue villages co-terminus with six gram panchayats. Adverting to the same, the Division Bench observed as under. ( 6 ) THE mere fact that as per the stand taken by the learned counsel the appellants that census figures for revenue village Dhone were not furnished but were available will not be a ground to grant relief to the appellants in view of the decision rendered by us in Writ Appeal No. 532 of 2003 and batch, dated 3-4-2003. It is needless to add that Dhone village was reconstituted to form six different panchayats also will not be a ground to interfere in the matter since it was only by notification dated 28-6-2002 that Dhone revenue village was divided and reconstituted into six separate revenue villages co-terminus with six gram panchayats. Therefore, the said reconstitution will be valid only for the excise year 2003-2004 and not 2002-2003. Accordingly the appeal stands dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri E. Ayyapu Reddy, placed strong reliance on the notification dated 20-6-2002 as well as the observationsmade by the division Bench in support of his contention that the second respondent cannot demand licence fee at Rs. 8,25,000/- for the excise year 2002-03. Per contra, learned Govt. Pleader, as noticed already, submits that the District Collector issued only a preliminary notification and that in view of the communication of the Chief Electoral Officer, Govt. of Andhra Pradesh, the Collector did not issue final notification forming new villages. To resolve the controversy, a brief reference to the A. P. Districts (Formation) act is necessary. Per contra, learned Govt. Pleader, as noticed already, submits that the District Collector issued only a preliminary notification and that in view of the communication of the Chief Electoral Officer, Govt. of Andhra Pradesh, the Collector did not issue final notification forming new villages. To resolve the controversy, a brief reference to the A. P. Districts (Formation) act is necessary. Section 3 of the said Act deals with division of State into districts, formation of new districts and alteration of areas, boundaries or names of existing districts. Sub-sections (4) and (5) of Section 3 of the districts (Formation) Act read as under. 3 (4) The Commissioner of Land Revenue may, in the interests of better administration and development of the areas and subject to such rules as may be prescribed, by notification, group or amalgamate any two or more revenue villages or portions thereof so as to form a single new revenue village or divide any revenue village into two or more revenue villages, or increase or diminish the area of any revenue village, or alter the boundaries or name of any revenue village. 3 (5) Before issuing any notification under this section, the Government or the commissioner of Land Revenue, as the case may be, shall publish in such manner as may be prescribed, the proposals inviting objections or suggestions thereon from the persons residing within the district, revenue division, taluk, firka or village who are likely to be affected thereby within such period as may be specified therein, and shall take into consideration the objections or suggestions, if any, received. ( 7 ) IN exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the A. P. Districts (Formation) Act, the Government of Andhra Pradesh made A. P. Districts (Formation) Rules, 1984. Rule 3 thereof deals with matters of consideration in formation of districts. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 of the said Rules requires proper authority to issue preliminary notification under sub-section (5) of section 3 of the Districts (Formation) Act inviting objections or suggestions to the proposals from the persons residing in the areas which are likely to be affected. Rule 3 thereof deals with matters of consideration in formation of districts. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 of the said Rules requires proper authority to issue preliminary notification under sub-section (5) of section 3 of the Districts (Formation) Act inviting objections or suggestions to the proposals from the persons residing in the areas which are likely to be affected. Rule 4 of the Districts (Formation) Rules requires such publication to be made either in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette or District Gazette, as the case may be, and shall be issued in Form No. I. After considering the objections by persons objected to the proposal as per sub-rule (2) of Rule 4, a final notification in Forms II or III (Form No. II by the State Government and Form no. III by the Commissioner of Land Revenue or District Collector) has to be issued as per Rule 5. By reading Section 3 of the Districts (Formation) Act with Rules 3, 4 and 5 of the Districts (Formation) Rules, it becomes clear that the notification dated 20-6-2002 relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners is only preliminary notification and, therefore, it cannot be said that five hamlets of dhone village are being separated from Dhone revenue village. It is necessary to extract the notification as published. FORM-I (See Rule -3) under sub-section (4) and (5) of Section 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Districts (Formation) Act, 1974 (Act No. 7 of 1974) notice is hereby given to all concerned that the Commissioner of Land Revenue in the interests of better administration and development of the areas concerned proposes to group or amalgamate certain revenue villages/portions of certain revenue village to form a new revenue village/divide a revenue village/increase the area of/diminish the area of certain revenue villages/ alter the boundaries of certain revenue village/alter the name of certain revenue villages as set out in detail in the schedule as attested by the District Collector, Kurnool and list appended hereto in annexure. Objections or suggestions are invited on the above proposal from all persons residing within the village who are likely to be affected thereby for being taken into consideration by the Commissioner of Land Revenue. Objections or suggestions are invited on the above proposal from all persons residing within the village who are likely to be affected thereby for being taken into consideration by the Commissioner of Land Revenue. All objections and suggestions should be in writing in English or Telugu and should be addressed to the Collector (by designation) within whose jurisdiction the area lies so as to reach the office of the Collector on or before expiry of 30 days from the date of this notification. ( 8 ) WHILE issuing the above notification dated 20-6-2002, the District Collector only invited objections to be addressed to him. No final notification was published. This Court has already referred to a communication from the Chief electoral Officer and ex-officio Secretary to the Government of Andhra Pradesh wherein all the District Collectors were requested not to make any changes in the administrative units having regard to the constitution of delimitation commission as per the Delimitation Act, 2002. The same was also forwarded by the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration to all the District Collectors. That is the reason why the District Collector, Kurnool did not issue a final notification as required under sub- section (4) of Section 3 of the Districts (Formation) Act and Rule 5 of the Districts (Formation) Rules. The observations made by the Division Bench are of no assistance to the petitioners. This Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioners produced the preliminary notification issued by the District Collector and misrepresented before the division Bench that it is a final notification. The observations made by the division Bench, in my considered opinion, do not confer any right or inchoate right to the petitioners to escape the liability of paying licence fee at rs. 8,25,000/- as the population of Dhone revenue village is in excess of 50,000. For all the above reasons, the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed with costs.