JUDGMENT 1. In these cases, as the common question of law is involved, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The appellants have challenged the respective orders passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby and whereunder the writ petitions preferred by them were rejected. 3. The appellant, M/s Liquor King, Palamau (LPA No. 191 of 2006) has challenged the order contained in Memo No. 319 dated 26th April, 2005 issued by the respondents, whereby and whereunder the appellant was directed to deposit a further sum of Rs. 3,50,000/- being the difference of enhanced licence fee. Similar order contained in Memo No. 836 dated 29th April, 2005 issued by the respondents have been challenged by the appellant, M/s Mount Shivalik Breweries Ltd. (LPA No. 234 of 2006). 4. The main plea taken by the appellants is that the subsequent notification No. 522 dated 12th April, 2005 issued by the respondents enhancing the licence fee from Rs. 1,50,000/- to Rs. 5,00,000/- is not applicable to the Licensees, whose licences have been renewed prior to Notification No. 522 dated 12th April, 2005. It was submitted that the said Notification being prospective in nature, as is evident from Clause-2 of the said Notification, the same cannot apply to the licensees, whose licences have already been renewed. 5. It appears that both the appellants have been granted wholesale licences for distribution of Indian Made Foreign Liquor. They applied for renewal of their licences for the period 2005-06. The licence of the appellant, M/s Liquor King, Palamau, was renewed on 1.4.2005; whereas licence of appellant, M/s Mount Shivalik Brewaries Ltd. was renewed on 7.4.2005. Subsequently the impugned Notification No. 522 dated 12th April, 2005 having been issued by the Board of Revenue, the respondents asked the appellants to pay the difference of enhanced licence fee. 6. The respondents have not disputed the aforesaid fact. The only plea taken by them is that in view of judgment having been rendered on the similar issue by this Court on 2 nd February, 2005 in W.P.(C) No. 4521 of 2004 and analogous cases, while renewing the licence, the authority should have mentioned that the said licence is renewed, subject to enhancement of the fee, as may be made in future. 7. Counsel for the State submitted that the fee was, in fact, enhanced by that time. 7. Counsel for the State submitted that the fee was, in fact, enhanced by that time. But, the submission made by counsel for the State cannot be accepted as admittedly the Notification No. 522 dated 12th April, 2005 was issued subsequently from prospective date and given effect from the date of issuance of the same and there was no such decision taken with regard to the wholesale dealer of Indian Made Foreign Liquour, when the licences were renewed on 1st April, 2006 and 7th April, 2006. 8. In the case of Ram Kumar Singh Choudhary and Ors. v. State of Jharkhand and Ors. [W.P.(C) No. 4521 of 2004] and analogous cases disposed of on 2 nd February, 2005, similar matter fell for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court, wherein the Court held that the enhancement of the licence fee, as sought by the said Notification, which was under challenge in those cases for renewal of licences, was not applicable in respect of licensees whose licence has already been renewed. Similar stand taken by the respondent-State, as taken in the present case, were rejected. As admittedly, the licences of the appellants were renewed prior to issuance of Notification No. 522 dated 12th April, 2005 for the period 2005-06 and the Notification No. 522 dated 12th April, 2005 having come into force with prospective date, it cannot effect the licence which has already been renewed. 9. The learned Single Judge, having failed to notice the ratio laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ram Kumar Singh Choudhary (supra), this Court has no option but to set aside the orders passed by the learned Single Judge. The impugned memo No. 319 dated 26th April, 2006 and impugned memo No. 836 dated 29th April, 2005, by which the appellants were asked to deposit further amount of Rs. 3,50,000/- each, are, hereby set aside. Both the appeals are allowed. 10. There will be no order as to costs.