MOHAN SHANTANAGOUDAR, J. ( 1 ) IN these writ petitions, the petitioners have prayed for writ of mandamus directing the respondents to renew lapsed CL-2 licences of the petitioners by accepting 50% of the prescribed licence fee for the lapsed period and full fee for the current year. They have also sought for a writ of prohibition prohibiting the respondents from demanding the additional licence fee for the lapsed period of the licence of the petitioners. Consequently, the petitioners have sought for quashing the demand notices, by which the respondents have demanded full licence fee for the lapsed period. ( 2 ) IN support of the arguments, Sri GK. Bhat, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners relied upon the provisions of rule-5a of the Karnataka Excise (Sale of Indian and Foreign Liquors)Rules, 1968, (for short hereinafter referred to as the 'rules') and the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in W. A. No. 4/2007, disposed of on 26-3-2007. It is contended by Sri G. K. Bhat that Rule 5-A (3) of the rules mandates the respondents to collect only 50% of the licence fee prescribed under Rule 8 of the Rules in respect of the entire period for which the licence had lapsed for the purpose of maintaining continuity of licence. According to him the Division Bench of this Court in W. A. No. 4/2007, disposed of on 26-3-2007 has held that the State government cannot collect more than 50% of the licence fee in respect of lapsed period of licence. Sri Udaya Holla, the learned Advocate General opposed the writ petitions by inter alia contending that the State is justified in demanding the full licence fee for the lapsed period of licence. He relies upon the judgments of this Court in W. P. No. 47312/2003 (disposed of on 11-2-2004), W. P. No. 10064 (disposed of on 7-2-1995) and W. A. NO. 1204/1995 (disposed of on 26-6-1997), to contend that the State is entitled to collect the entire licence fee for the lapsed period also. It is further contended by Sri Udaya Holla that the legislature thought it fit to give concession to the persons whose licence have lapsed prior to 1-7-1999, because, such persons may be put to greater hardship if are directed to pay full licence fee for the longer period. Thus, according to him, the cut off date is 1-7-1999. It is further contended by Sri Udaya Holla that the legislature thought it fit to give concession to the persons whose licence have lapsed prior to 1-7-1999, because, such persons may be put to greater hardship if are directed to pay full licence fee for the longer period. Thus, according to him, the cut off date is 1-7-1999. ( 3 ) IT is not in dispute that all the petitioners in these writ petitions have obtained CL-2 licences in the year 2001-02 and onwards. They have renewed the licences for one or two years later. Thereafter the licences are not renewed. Thus, it is clear that licence are granted in favour of the petitioners subsequent to 1 -7-1999 and obviously the same have lapsed thereafter. ( 4 ) IN this read it is relevant to note Rule 5-A of the Rules, which reads thus: "5-A Renewal of licences: (1) The Excise commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner, as the case may be, may on an application made to him along with the licence fee prescribed in Rule 8 renew the licence granted under these rules. (2) Every such application shall be made at least one month before the expiry of the licence already granted: provided thas the Excise Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner, as the case may be, may accept and consider any such application made after the aforesaid period of one month, if he is satisfied that the applicant had sufficient cause for not making the application within the period. (3) The licenses granted prior to the first of july, 1999 may be renewed at the discretion of the Excise Commissioner or the Deputy commissioner, as the case may be on payment of 50% (fifty per cent) of the fee prescribed under rule 8 in respect of the entire period for which licence was not granted, for the purpose of maintaining continuity of the licences; provided that while renewing the licence under the sub-rule the Deputy Commissioner or the Excise Commissioner, as the case may be shall ensure that the total number of licences granted or renewed do not exceed the quota fixed in Rule. 12, for grant of each kind of licence for an area. 12, for grant of each kind of licence for an area. " The bare perusal of Rule 5-A of the Rules would make it clear that the application for renewal of licence shall be made either before the Excise Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner as the case may be, along with the licence: fee prescribed under Rule 8 of the rules for renewal of licence. Rule 8 of the Rules prescribes specified fees for obtaining licence. Thus, the applicant shall have to pay the required licence fee for getting the licence renewed. Such an application shall be filed at least one month prior to expiry of the licence already granted. However, the Excise Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner as the case may be, may condone the delay in filing the application if he is satisfied that the applicant had sufficient cause for not making the application within a period of one month. Sub-Rule (3) of Rule 5-A of the Rules further makes it abundantly clear that if the licences granted prior to 1st July 1999, if lapsed, may be renewed at the discretion of the Excise Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner as the case may be, on payment of 50% of fee prescribed under Rule 8 of the Rules in respect of the lapsed period. Sub-Rule (3) of Rule 5-A of the Rules is interpreted by the learned Single Judge in W. P. No. 47312/2003, wherein it is held thus: "2. The licence which had not been renewed prior to 1-7-1999 will be renewed if 50% of the fee is paid. It is a concession given to those who have not renewed their licences. This same cannot be termed either arbitrary or discriminatory. 3. In paragraph 3 of the writ petition the petitioners admitted that the renewal of licence sought for was in respect of alternative premises and it was for the excise year 2003-04. Therefore, petitioner cannot seek renewal at 50% of the fee. The 50% concession in fee given is in respect of lapsed licences prior to 1-7-1999. Hence, the writ petition is wholly untenable and devoid of merit. " The language used in Rule 5-A (3) of the Rules is plain and unambiguous. Hence, the said provision has to be read as it is. There is no scope for reading or interpreting the same in any other manner than its plain meaning. Hence, the writ petition is wholly untenable and devoid of merit. " The language used in Rule 5-A (3) of the Rules is plain and unambiguous. Hence, the said provision has to be read as it is. There is no scope for reading or interpreting the same in any other manner than its plain meaning. Thus, as the petitioners have obtained licences after 1-7-1999 the benefit or concession provided under Rule 5-A (3)is not applicable to them. The plain reading of the said provision makes it clear that they are not entitled for the concession for payment of 50% of the licence fee for the lapsed period. ( 5 ) FROM the aforementioned dictum laid down by this Court, it is clear that the concession is given to those who have not renewed their licences which had lapsed prior to 1-7-1999. Admittedly, in these matters, the licence had not lapsed prior to 1-7-1999, but had lapsed thereafter. ( 6 ) IT is well settled position of law that the State has got power to regulate the use and trade of alcohol which includes the power to impose fee for allowing a person to trade in such business. The imposition of fee is a regulatory measure. The State may charge excise duty on potable alcohol and sales tax under Entry 52 of List-II. In case the State is rendering any service as distinct from its claim of so called grant or approval, it may charge fee based on quid pro quo. The right of the State to impose the licence fee for grant of the liquor vending licence is not in dispute. ( 7 ) THE analysis of Rule 5-A of the Rules in that an application for renewal must be accompanied by the prescribed fee in terms of rule 8 of the Rules. In other words, every licence sought to be renewed, must as on the date of the application be an-existing licence, for otherwise, the question of making; an application for renewal at least one month before the expiry of licence period does not arise. Rule 5-A of the Rules envisaged renewal of licence only in case the same is a duly renewed for the previous period also. The scheme of the Rules does not provide for a situation where a licence may be renewed inter-mittently. Rule 5-A of the Rules envisaged renewal of licence only in case the same is a duly renewed for the previous period also. The scheme of the Rules does not provide for a situation where a licence may be renewed inter-mittently. In order that the renewal is granted for future, the rules pre-suppose that the licence is renewed even for the past to maintain its efficacy. When seen in that context, the renewal approved by the Government would be a renewal from the date of expiry of the licence. Such a retrospective renewal would be necessary because, but for the grant of such a renewal, the question of renewal of licence only for the year 2007-08 would not arise. In that view of the matter, the demand notice issued by the authorities calling upon the petitioners to deposit the entire arrears of licence fee cannot be said to be illegal or bad in law. ( 8 ) A reference in this context is to be made to the judgment of this Court in W. P. No. 10064/1993 disposed of on 7-2-1995. In the said matter, the similar question arose in respect of renewal of licence for distilleries under the provisions of the Karnataka Excise (Distillery and Warehouse) Rules, 1967. After considering the concerned Rules, this Court held that the demand for payment of licence fee for the lapsed period of licence is not illegal. The judgment in W. P. No. 10064/1993 is confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in W. A. No. 1204/1995, disposed of on 26-6-1997. The Division Bench after considering the entire material in detail also concluded that the state is justified in demanding the licence fee for the lapsed period. ( 9 ) HOWEVER, the petitioners have relied upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court is W. A. No. 4/2007 disposed of on 26-3-2007 in support of their contention that the State cannot demand more than 50% of the licence fee for the lapsed period under Rule 5-A of the Rules. This Court is of (the considered opinion that the judgment of the Division Bench in W. A. No. 4/2007 may not be helpful to the petitioners inasmuch as it cannot be said that the Division Bench in the said matter has ruled that the State cannot collect licence fee in excess of 50% for the lapsed period. This Court is of (the considered opinion that the judgment of the Division Bench in W. A. No. 4/2007 may not be helpful to the petitioners inasmuch as it cannot be said that the Division Bench in the said matter has ruled that the State cannot collect licence fee in excess of 50% for the lapsed period. The Division Bench in the aforesaid matter has proceeded only on the submission made by the additional Government Advocate. In the said matter, the Government advocate submitted that the licensing authority was required to demand 50% of the licence fee under Rule 5-A of the Rules and based on the said submission he prayed for appropriate direction by the Division bench. In view of such concession of the learned Additional government Advocate the Division Bench has proceed to pass the order in W. A. No. 4/2007. In the said writ appeal, the Division Bench has quashed the demand notice and directed the licensing authority to re-examine the case keeping in view Rule 5-A of the Rules regarding the quantum of licence fees. Thus, it cannot be said that the Division bench finally ruled that the State Government has no power to collect more than 50% of the fee for the lapsed period of licence. For the very reasons, the State Government is justified in imposing additional licence fee also for the lapsed period under Rule, 8-A of the Rules. Hence, this Court does not find any error in the action of the respondents. Therefore, the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed. Accordingly the same are dismissed.