JUDGMENT Hon’ble Prakash Krishna, J.—By means of the present petition, the petitioner has sought quashing of the order dated 28-11-2006 passed by the State of U.P. in excise revision No. 100 of 2006 and mandamus directing the respondents to adjust the bottling licence fee paid by the petitioner distillery during the currency of the excise year, in advance the minimum licence fee of Rs. 2,00,000/- at the end of the excise year, as provided under Rule 5(ii) of the 2003 Rules and to direct the respondents to adjust the amount of Rs. 18,00,000/- realised from the petitioner in the subsequent fee to be paid by the petitioner, with other usual reliefs. 2. The petitioner was holder of a licence in form, FL-3 for bottling of Indian made spirit/in bond without payment of duty/after payment of duty and a licence in form FL-3A, for bottling of the foreign liquor, on the basis of an agreement for bottling brands of M/s. Amrit Distillery Ltd. Bangalore. It has been further stated that the Excise Commissioner vide order dated 25-7-2005 cancelled the aforesaid licences in form FL-3A holding them to be against the rules. It has granted the said FL-3 licences to M/s. harat Distillery Ltd. Mumbai and M/s. Amrit Distillery Ltd. Bangalore and also amended FL-1A licences in the name of the aforesaid distilleries vide order dated 9-8-2005. 3. The case of the petitioner is that it has been paying the fee for bottling as provided under Rule 2 of Uttar Pradesh Bottling of Foreign Liquor (Thirteenth Amendment) Rules, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the 2003 Rules). For the excise years 2003-04, 2004-05 and 2005-06, the aforesaid licences were renewed by the Excise Commissioner. The dispute giving rise to the present petition arose when the petitioner received a notice No. 413 dated 11-9-2006 issued by the Assistant Excise Commissioner, Baheri Distillery, Bareilly under which the petitioner distillery has been directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 18,00,000/- towards the arrears of fee for bottling. A copy of the said notice has been annexed as Annexure-4 to the writ petition. The said notice has been issued on the premises that deposit of Rs. 2,00,000/- alongwith the renewal application for the aforesaid licences were towards renewal fee for each excise year and for each licence and was not liable to be adjusted towards the bottling charges. A copy of the said notice has been annexed as Annexure-4 to the writ petition. The said notice has been issued on the premises that deposit of Rs. 2,00,000/- alongwith the renewal application for the aforesaid licences were towards renewal fee for each excise year and for each licence and was not liable to be adjusted towards the bottling charges. Further averment in the said notice is that due to mistake on the part of the department, the said amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- which was renewal application fee has been wrongly adjusted against the bottling charges. 4. Questioning the legality and validity of the said notice issued by the respondent No. 4, demanding a sum of Rs. 18,00,000/- as arrears for bottling licences, the petitioner approached the State Government by means of excise revision No. 100 of 2006. The revision having been dismissed by the impugned order dated 28-11-2006, the present writ petition has been filed challenging the order of the State Government dismissing the revision. 5. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of contesting respondents the facts, as stated in the writ petition, have not been disputed or denied. The defence set out in the counter affidavit is that the petitioner knowingly deposited Rs. 2 lacs at the time of renewal of each licence for all the three years involved in the present writ petition and they subsequently claimed the refund of Rs. 18 lacs which due to mistake was granted by the department. It has been further stated that on a true and correct interpretation of the provisions of the 2003 Rules, the deposit of Rs. 2 lacs with each application for renewal of the licence fee is neither adjustable nor refundable to the petitioner. Alongwith counter affidavit, copies of the petitioner’s application for renewal of FL-3A licence for the year 2005-06 and other licences have been annexed to show that the petitioner enclosed treasury challan of Rs. 2 lacs towards renewal of licence. 6. When the matter was taken up earlier it was found that a better counter affidavit is required and, therefore, a detailed order was passed on 10-4-2008. The relevant extract is reproduced below : “Pursuance to the order of this Court dated 8-4-2008 the Excise Commissioner, U.P. Sri Sudhir M. Bodde is present in Court. 6. When the matter was taken up earlier it was found that a better counter affidavit is required and, therefore, a detailed order was passed on 10-4-2008. The relevant extract is reproduced below : “Pursuance to the order of this Court dated 8-4-2008 the Excise Commissioner, U.P. Sri Sudhir M. Bodde is present in Court. He prays for and is granted a week’s time to file better counter affidavit coming up with the clear stand as to whether the adjustment of Rs. Two lacs as depicted in the order impugned in this writ petition related to the minimum licence fee deposited as per Rule 2, sub-rule (2) of the Rules or it was an inadvertence adjustment of the application fee of Rs. Two lacs to be deposited under Rule 4/5 of the Rules. In the counter affidavit to be filed the application for renewal of all three years in question, submitted by the petitioner will also be annexed. Further the counter affidavit will also disclose giving example of other bottlers as to how the adjustments have been made with regard to the licence fee/application money. Counter affidavit will also clarify with supporting material the stand taken by Sri S.P. Kesarwani today in Court that every renewal also requires the same conditions to be fulfilled as required for grant of new licence. The Excise Commissioner will also consider the language used in existing Rules and if any ambiguity or its interpretation is found to be not clear, he may consider getting the same amended in accordance with law.” 7. In pursuance thereof a supplementary counter affidavit of Sri Ajit Kumar Singh, Assistant Excise Commissioner, Baheri Distillery, Bareilly has been filed wherein it has been stated that by inadvertence the amount deposited by the petitioner under Rule 5(i) was adjusted towards bottling fee under Section 2(2) in 2003 Rules and thus the amount of bottling fee reduced by Rs. 2 lacs in respect of each licence and consequently demand of bottling fee due to inadvertent adjustment became liable to be recoverable from the petitioner. In the order granting refund it was clearly mentioned that if in future any mistake/claim in the matter of adjustment is found, the distillery shall be liable to return the amount. 8. 2 lacs in respect of each licence and consequently demand of bottling fee due to inadvertent adjustment became liable to be recoverable from the petitioner. In the order granting refund it was clearly mentioned that if in future any mistake/claim in the matter of adjustment is found, the distillery shall be liable to return the amount. 8. In para-6 of the supplementary counter affidavit it has been stated as a fact that there are 25 distilleries holding FL3/3A licences, out of them the petitioner and two other distilleries namely M/s. Shamli Distillery and M/s. Pilkhani have disputed non adjustment of fee deposited under Rule 4/5(i) of the Rules. In para-8 thereof it has been stated that a permission has been sought from the State Government for making clarifacatory amendment in the Rules and only thereafter the amendment may be carried out. A supplementary rejoinder affidavit has also been filed by the petitioner. 9. Main thrust of the arguments of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that under the said Rules a distinction has been clearly carved out with respect to an application for grant of new licence FL3/3A and their renewal. Elaborating the arguments it was submitted that there is no such requirement for a licensee while applying renewal of licence FL3/3A to make a deposit of Rs. 2 lacs with each renewal application. On a true and correct interpretation of 2003 Rules, a minimum of Rs. 2 lacs per annum as bottling fee has been prescribed but no application money for renewal of the said licences has been prescribed. In other words, the deposit of Rs. 2 lacs made by the petitioner at the time of filing of renewal application was and is adjustable against the bottling fee and was rightly adjusted by the department, submits the learned Counsel for the petitioner. 10. The learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand, submits that in the word ‘renewal’, grant of new licence is implicit. He submits that the licences for bottling are granted only for one excise year and as soon as the period is over, a licensee has to apply for new licence by way of renewal and as such, every time while applying for renewal of the licence FL3/3A, a sum of Rs. 2 lacs per licence for renewal is payable as application money and the said amount is not adjustable. 2 lacs per licence for renewal is payable as application money and the said amount is not adjustable. The petitioner also understood the relevant Rules in the manner indicated above and that is the reason that it deposited Rs. 2 lacs as application money with each renewal application. It was further submitted that the deposit of Rs. 2 lacs alongwith renewal application tantamounts the admission of the petitioner and as such the petitioner is bound by the said admission. 11. Considered the respective submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings. 12. To recapitulate the facts, it may be noted that the petitioner, as a matter of fact, while applying for renewal of the licences for the years 2003-04, 2004-05 and 2005-06 had deposited Rs. 2 lacs on each occasion. The petitioner is holding three FL3/3A licences, thus it has paid total Rs. 18 lacs during this period which it now claims to be adjustable against the bottling fee. It is also not in dispute that the said amount on the application filed by the petitioner was adjusted by the respondents and the excess amount was refunded. After refund of the amount, the impugned notice dated 11-9-2006 has been issued. This notice is preceded by a letter in the form of circular issued from the office of the Excise Commissioner, Allahabad to all Assistant Excise Commissioners etc. bringing to their notice that under 2003 Rules as amended, a licence fee of Rs. 2 lacs has been fixed and every licensee is liable to pay additional amount towards bottling charges as per the fee prescribed. The amount of Rs. 2 lacs is not liable for adjustment towards bottling fee which is apparent from Rule 5(ii). Further it is mentioned that although earlier a circular dated 25-1-2005 was issued but the position was not made clear. The authorities were directed to comply with the provisions of the said 2003 Rules which is effective from the year 2003-04. If the said amount has been adjusted towards bottling fee, get Rs. 2 lacs deposited and inform the office accordingly, it was provided therein. 13. A bare perusal of the said letter of the Commissioner would show that import of 2003 Rules with regard to deposit of Rs. If the said amount has been adjusted towards bottling fee, get Rs. 2 lacs deposited and inform the office accordingly, it was provided therein. 13. A bare perusal of the said letter of the Commissioner would show that import of 2003 Rules with regard to deposit of Rs. 2 lacs which were required to be deposited alongwith the application for renewal was not clear even to the highest officer of the department, namely, the Commissioner of U.P. Excise what so say about the petitioner. The Excise Commissioner has very fairly stated the position in his letter dated 4-9-2006 that there is still a confusion in the mind of the department with regard to the nature of deposit of Rs. 2 lacs and the said position was not even clarified by his earlier letter dated 25-1-2005. 14. Before proceeding further, it is desirable to reproduce the relevant Rules which came into force w.e.f. 1-4-2003, as amended : “2. Amendment of Rule 2.—In “the Uttar Pradesh Bottling of Foreign Liquor Rules, 1969” hereinafter referred to as said Rules. In Rule 2 for existing sub-rule (2) set out in Column 1 below, the rules as set out in Column II shall be substituted, namely : Column II Rule as hereby substituted 2. Subject to a minimum of Rs. 2,00,000 (Rupees two lacs) the licence fee in case of a distiller or a vintner shall be levied on spirit or wine at the following rates or at the rate as fixed by the Excise Commissioner with prior approval of the State from time to time : ................................................ 3. (i) A person, applying for a bottling licence under Rule 2, shall alongwith the application furnish the following particulars to the Excise Commissioner, U.P., namely : (a) the place at which and the premises in which bottling shall be carried on, and (b) the approximate number of days in a week or month during which bottling shall be carried on; He shall also submit a detailed plan of the premises showing the different rooms or compartments and all the permanent fixtures therein. The plan shall be submitted in duplicate where bottling is to be carried on in non-bonded premises and in triplicate where bottling is to be carried on in bond. The plan shall be submitted in duplicate where bottling is to be carried on in non-bonded premises and in triplicate where bottling is to be carried on in bond. (ii) The Excise Commissioner, U.P., if he is satisfied on enquiry that the applicant is a fit person to hold the required licence and the premises in which such person proposes to carry on bottling are suitable, may, grant the licence. Every such licensee shall deposit Rs. One lacs as security in form of FDR or TDR in name of the Excise Commissioner, Uttar Pradesh before issue of licence. The licensee shall be allowed to draw, as it falls due, the interest accruing on them. 4. Application for the renewal of bottling licence shall be made in Form F.L. B-1 to the Excise Commissioner, Uttar Pradesh on or before February 28, each year. Unless the fee or any part thereof is in arrear or there be any other sufficient reason a bottling licence in Form F.L. 3, F.L. 3-A may be renewed by the Excise Commissioner from year to year. 5. (i) Applicant shall enclose original copy of Treasury Challan with his application, showing that Rs. 2,00,000/- (Two lacs) in case brewery 1,00,000/- (One lacs) has been deposited for the grant of new licence in Form F.L. 3 or F.L. 3-A or both for the year or part thereof. 5 (ii) The licensed bottler holding F.L. 3 or F.L. 3-A licence shall keep an account current of the fees payable on the bottling of spirit, wine and beer. He shall be required to deposit fees in advance in instalments of not less than ten thousand rupees for adjustment of fees on actual number of bottles bottled. After deducting the minimum fee as mentioned in sub-rule (2), if there is a balance of fees, at the end of the year the said balance shall be permitted to be carried for next year or to be refunded in case the licence is cancelled or not allowed to be renewed.” 15. The only question which needs adjudication in the present case is about the nature of deposit of Rs. 2 lacs alongwith the renewal application for FL 3/3-A licences for permission to bottle the liquor. The only question which needs adjudication in the present case is about the nature of deposit of Rs. 2 lacs alongwith the renewal application for FL 3/3-A licences for permission to bottle the liquor. On a careful reading of Rules 4, 5(i) and 5(ii) it is clear that there is no provision in the said 2003 Rules which may prescribe the application money for grant of renewal of licence FL 3/3-A. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 prescribes a minimum licence fee of Rs. 2 lacs. It also prescribes the rate of bottling depending upon the volume of its contents and the nature of the commodity. Under Rule 3, a person applying for bottling licence, is required to furnish certain particulars to the Excise Commissioner such as place at which and the premises in which bottling shall be carried on and approximate number of days in a week or month during which bottling shall be carried on. The said Rule is nothing to do with either the application money for grant of licence or for its renewal. 16. Then, Rule 4 speaks about the application for renewal of bottling licence. The said Rule has already been reproduced above. On a close reading of the said Rule, the following things emerge : (1) An application for renewal shall be made on or before 28th February of each year; (2) It shall be made in form FL B-1 to the Excise Commissioner; (3) The Excise Commissioner is required to renew the licence except in the following cases : (i) The applicant is in arrears, or (ii)There is any other exceptional reason. 17. The said Rule on its own does not prescribe any fee towards renewal of the licence. To overcome this difficulty, Sri S.P. Kesarwani, Advocate, learned Standing Counsel, submits that the said Rule should be read alongwith Rule 5(i). The crux of his argument is that renewal is nothing but a grant of new licence and as such, on a conjoint reading of Rule 4 with Rule 5(i), filing of original copy of treasury challan with the application showing that Rs. 2 lacs has been deposited, is a necessary requirement and as such, the deposit of Rs. 2 lacs is towards the application money. 2 lacs has been deposited, is a necessary requirement and as such, the deposit of Rs. 2 lacs is towards the application money. In support of the above submission, reference was made by him to the Law Lexicon 1997 Edition wherein ‘renewal’ has been defined in the following manner : “Renewal : A change of something old for something new. An act of renewing any permission, grant, etc. “The Renewal of a “licence" means, a new Licence granted by way of renewal” (Paterson’s Licensing Acts.)” 18. In Bouvier’s Law Dictionery-III Revision, “renewal” has been defined in the following manner : “Renewal : A change of something old for something new; as, the renewal of a note; the renewal of a lease. See Novation.” 19. In Corpus Juris Secondum, word “renewal” has been defined as under : “Renewal : The term “renewal” has no strictly legal or technical signification, and it is not a word of art. It may be given different meanings, and it has different meanings, varying with the subjects with reference to which it is used. The cases construing the proper meaning to be ascribed to the term are by no means uniform; it may mean whatever the parties intended when contracting, and the construction is controlled by the intention of the parties. In its broadest sense “renewal” means that which is made anew or reestablished; the revival or rehabilitation of an expiring subject; a change of something old for, or to, something new; a replacement.” 20. Having given careful consideration to the aforesaid submission of the learned Standing Counsel, it is difficult to agree with him. The scheme of 2003 Rules clearly demonstrates that a distinction has been maintained in between an application for grant of a ‘new licence’ and an application for ‘renewal of old licence’. The said scheme is evident from Rules 3, 4 and 5. 21. So far as ‘renewal’ is concerned, a specific rule namely Rule 4 has been enacted. The said Rule does not prescribe any fee for renewal. On the other hand, it prescribes that an application for renewal should be in a prescribed form FLB-1 and the renewal can be refused only under specified circumstances such as, the applicant is in arrears of bottling fee or for any other exceptional reason. The said Rule does not prescribe any fee for renewal. On the other hand, it prescribes that an application for renewal should be in a prescribed form FLB-1 and the renewal can be refused only under specified circumstances such as, the applicant is in arrears of bottling fee or for any other exceptional reason. It follows that grant of renewal of bottling licence is almost a matter of right and can be refused only on specified grounds as mentioned in Rule 4. 22. In my considered opinion, the word ‘renewal’ has been used to convey the idea “to acquire again”. While providing so, the legislature in their wisdom have not prescribed any fee of renewal. 23. The above view which I propose to take is further fortified from the plain language of Rule 5(i) of the Rules. The said Rule is specifically made applicable “for grant of new licence”. The said Rule provides the filing of treasury challan showing that Rs. 2 lacs has been deposited. 24. A conjoint reading of sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 and of Rule 5(i) and (ii) would show that Rs. 2 lacs has been prescribed as minimum licence fee. That is the reason that a provision has been made in Rule 5(ii) for accounting at the end of the excise year. A licensee is required to deposit fees in advance in instalments of not less than ten thousand rupees for adjustment of fees on actual number of bottles bottled. 25. If the interpretation given by the learned Standing Counsel is accepted to be correct, the last sentence of Rule 5(ii) would become redundant. The said portion of the Rule 5(ii) provides that after deducting the minimum fee as mentioned in sub-rule (2) if there is balance of fee at the end of the year, the said balance shall be permitted to be carried for next year or to be refunded in case the licence is cancelled or not allowed to be renewed. 26. The import of Rule 5(ii) is that in case of renewal of bottling licence minimum balance fee of Rs. 2 lacs is to be maintained and the excess amount, if any, will be refunded/adjusted. 27. Learned Standing Counsel could not refer any provision under the said Rule to show that for renewal of bottling licence, Rs. 26. The import of Rule 5(ii) is that in case of renewal of bottling licence minimum balance fee of Rs. 2 lacs is to be maintained and the excess amount, if any, will be refunded/adjusted. 27. Learned Standing Counsel could not refer any provision under the said Rule to show that for renewal of bottling licence, Rs. 2 lacs has been prescribed as application money which is not liable to be refunded or adjusted. In the absence of any such provision, the argument of the learned Standing Counsel cannot be accepted. In Corpus Juris Secondum Vol. 76 it is mentioned that term ‘renewal’ has no strictly legal or technical signification and it is not a word of art. It may be given different meanings, and it has different meanings, varying with the subject with reference to which it is used. 28. In the present context, the word “renewal” has not been used in the sense of new licence as was argued by the learned Standing Counsel in 2003 Rules. 29. Much emphasis was laid by the learned Standing Counsel on the ground that while applying for renewal of licence, the petitioner voluntarily deposited Rs. 2 lacs with each renewal application. Reliance was placed on renewal applications filed by the petitioner. 30. Be that as it may, as noticed above, the position of law was in a nebulous state and even the Commissioner of Excise Department, the highest officer and the other officers were not clear about legal position and the confusion, according to the Commissioner himself, is prevailing in the department. It is equally important to notice that it is the department which has adjusted and granted the refund of Rs. 18 lacs for all these three years. 31. Lastly, the learned Standing Counsel referred a decision of the Apex Court in Provash Chandra Dalvi and another v. Biswanath Banerjee and another, 1989 Suppl (1) SCC 487. The said decision was rendered in a different factual background and has no application whatsoever to the controversy involved presently. Therein the Apex Court considered distinction in between ‘extension’ and ‘renewal’ with regard to leases. 32. Before parting with the case, it is desirable to notice the manner in which the State Government has disposed of the revision of the petitioner, without assigning any reason. The order of the State Government is contained in total six paragraphs. Therein the Apex Court considered distinction in between ‘extension’ and ‘renewal’ with regard to leases. 32. Before parting with the case, it is desirable to notice the manner in which the State Government has disposed of the revision of the petitioner, without assigning any reason. The order of the State Government is contained in total six paragraphs. Upto five paragraphs it has noted the facts of the case and the contentions of the Counsel for the parties. In the last paragraph 6, without assigning any reason or recording any finding with regard to various contentions raised by the petitioner, only in one sentence it has expressed its agreement that the demand notice dated 11-9-2006 was issued in accordance with law. What is disturbing to note in the order of the State Government is that there is absolutely no application of mind by the State Government to the controversy raised before it. Least it was expected from it to have recorded some reason for not accepting the contentions of the petitioner. This shows total non-application of mind by the State Government and the State Government has failed to exercise its jurisdiction vested in it by law by not deciding the controversy involved before it in a judicial manner. 33. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The demand notice dated 11-9-2006 and the order of the State Government dated 28-11-2006 are hereby quashed with costs of Rs. 5,000/-. ————