JUDGMENT This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside the notice in proceedings in Rc.No.600/10/A7, dated 30.01.2013, of respondent No.3, whereby he has levied 10% additional licence fee for the alleged enclosures put up by the petitioner for consumption of liquor in its Bar and Restaurant. At the hearing, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise has fairly conceded that in cases of this nature, this Court has been directing the authority concerned to treat the impugned demand as notice and the licensees were permitted to submit their explanation. The licensing authorities were further directed to consider the explanation and pass appropriate orders. It is regrettable to note that even though a series of orders in hundreds of cases have been passed, respondent No.3 has not become wiser. He has repeated the same illegality, which his department has been committing, at least for the last four years. Being a public servant, respondent No.3 is expected to show the required sensitivity to follow the orders of the Constitutional Courts and take corrective steps in conformity with the views expressed by the Courts. Respondent No.3 is directed not to repeat such illegalities in future. The petitioner is permitted to submit its explanation to the impugned notice and respondent No.3 shall thereafter consider the same and pass a final order. Respondent No.1 is directed to issue appropriate instructions to all the Prohibition and Excise Superintendents in the State to follow the procedure of issuing a prior notice and passing a final order before making a demand for the additional license fees. Subject to the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, W.P.M.Ps, if any, pending, are disposed of as infructuous.