Judgment : Venugopala Gowda, J. 1. In exercise of the rule making power conferred on the State Government under the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 (for short, the Act), The Karnataka Excise Licences (General Conditions) Rules, 1967 (for short, the Rules) has been framed. In these matters, an amendment effected to the Rules, by the State Government, as on 28.02.2013, by issue of a Notification, is the subject matter of consideration. 2. Relevant facts are: Petitioner in W.P.No.23735/2013 is an applicant for transfer of CL-9 licence granted and renewed on 18.06.2012 for the year 2012-13 valid upto 30.06.2013, standing in the name of Mr. Vincent D’ souza, the 3rd respondent. The petitioner remitted Rs.3,20,000/-towards transfer fee and Rs.48,000/- as additional fee on 28.02.2013 and submitted an application in the prescribed form, seeking transfer of licence. The Deputy Commissioner of Excise, Udupi District, refused to effect the transfer by issuing an endorsement dated 15.04.2013 vide Annexure-D for the reason that the petitioner having applied for transfer of licence on 02.03.2013, he is liable to pay twice the amount of the annual licence fee and the additional fee in view of the amendment of Rule 17-B of the Rules with effect from 1st March, 2013 and also for the reason that certain documents, as listed in the endorsement, are required to be produced. W.P.No.23735/2013 has been filed to quash the amendment effected to the Rules vide Notification-II bearing No. FD 05 PES 2013, Bangalore, dated 28.02.2013 of the Government of Karnataka and the endorsement dated 15.04.2013, issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Excise, Udupi. Petitioner has also sought for issue of a direction to the authority to transfer CL-9 licence standing in the name of the 3rd respondent, to his name and grant of consequential reliefs. 3. Petitioners in W.P.Nos.21917, 22492, 25756, 25757, 27365, 27366, 27596 & 2793927941 of 2013 are the applicant/s, seeking transfer of CL-9 licence/s in their favour, having applied prior to 28.02.2013, by remitting the fee as per the then prevailing Rule. 3. Petitioners in W.P.Nos.21917, 22492, 25756, 25757, 27365, 27366, 27596 & 2793927941 of 2013 are the applicant/s, seeking transfer of CL-9 licence/s in their favour, having applied prior to 28.02.2013, by remitting the fee as per the then prevailing Rule. They have filed the writ petition/s to direct the respondents to consider and pass the order/s for transferring the CL-9 licence/s in their favour by applying Rule 17-B of the Rules, as was in force on the date of submission of their respective application/s, by declaring that the Rule 17-B as amended with effect from 01.03.2013 as per Notification-II bearing No. FD 05 PES 2013, Bangalore, is not applicable to the application/s submitted by them and for grant of consequential reliefs. 4. Dr. S. Arumugham, Learned Advocate for the petitioner in W.P.No.23735/2013, firstly contended that the procedure for making the amendment to Rules has not been followed. He submitted that the draft was published on 20.02.2013 and the Rule was amended and the notification was published on 28.02.2013. He submitted that under Section 71 of the Act, procedure having been prescribed, the respondents have only made a show of compliance. He submitted that reasonable time was not granted to file objections and/or suggestions. Secondly, the object to amend the Rule is not clear and that by collecting double the annual licence fee, the object of the Act cannot be achieved and that the amended Rule is arbitrary and that the fee fixed is irrational. 5. Sri G.K. Bhat and Sri Mohan Bhat, Learned Advocates for the other petitioners, contended that on the date when the application/s seeking transfer of licence/s in favour of the petitioner/s were submitted, the Rule required payment of transfer fee equivalent to annual licence fee and the same was complied with. Learned Advocate contended that merely because subsequent to the submission of application/s by the petitioners, the Rule was amended making it mandatory to pay the transfer fee i.e., twice the annual licence fee, the amended Rule cannot be applied to the pending application/s, since the amended Rule is only prospective. Learned Advocates submitted that the Deputy Commissioner/s having processed the application/s and submitted the same to the Excise Commissioner for approval, the application/s having been kept pending, the respondents are unjustified in applying the Rule, amended subsequently and hence the action of the respondents is unreasonable and arbitrary. 6. Learned Advocates submitted that the Deputy Commissioner/s having processed the application/s and submitted the same to the Excise Commissioner for approval, the application/s having been kept pending, the respondents are unjustified in applying the Rule, amended subsequently and hence the action of the respondents is unreasonable and arbitrary. 6. Sri T.K. Vedamurthy, Learned HCGP, on the other hand contended that the draft of the Rules, further to amend Karnataka Excise Licences (General Conditions) Rules, 1967 in exercise of the power conferred by Section 71 of the Act, was published, as required by sub-Section (1) of the said section, for the information of all persons likely to be affected and notice was given on 20.02.2013, with a clear indication that the draft will be taken up for consideration after seven days from the date of its publication in the Official Gazette and that, in the draft, it was made clear that the amended Rules will come into force on 01.03.2013. He submitted that the draft was published in Part-IV-A of the Karnataka Gazette (Extraordinary) No.4, 1999 dated 20.02.2013 and the Gazette was made available to the public on 20.02.2013. Since no objection and/or suggestion was received, the State Government in exercise of the power conferred by Section 71 of the Act, amended Rule 17-B i.e., for the words, subject to payment of transfer fee equivalent to the annual licence fee, the words subject to payment of transfer fee equivalent to twice the annual licence fee, was substituted. He further submitted that the due procedure in making the amendment to the Rules was followed and the amended Rule is not arbitrary. He submitted that a licensee/ applicant has a choice in the matter and there is no element of compulsion involved in the matter of right to vend the liquor and hence, the levy of transfer fee is not liable to be questioned. 7. Two issues arise for consideration on the contentions urged, viz., 1. Whether the amendment to Rule 17-B of the Karnataka Excise Licences (General Conditions) (Amendment) Rules, 1967, substituting the words, subject to payment of transfer fee equivalent to twice the annual licence fee, is valid? 2. Whether an application filed for transfer of CL-9 licence should be considered with reference to the Rules as they existed when the application was made or in accordance with the Rules as in force on the date of consideration? 8. 2. Whether an application filed for transfer of CL-9 licence should be considered with reference to the Rules as they existed when the application was made or in accordance with the Rules as in force on the date of consideration? 8. The object of Excise laws is two fold vic., (i) to raise revenue and (ii) to regulate the trade in liquors which is a noxious substance. There is no fundamental right to trade in liquor. The only right of a licensee is to seek to enforce the terms of the contract, which is statutory in nature and the statutory provisions governing the contract. With this background, the cases of the petitioners is required to be examined. Re-question No.1: 9. Section 71 of the Act empowers the State by issue of a Notification and after previous publication, to make rules to carryout the purposes of the Act. Sub-Section (3) provides that every Rule made under the Act shall have the effect as if enacted in the Act subject to such modification as may be made under sub-Section (4). Sub-Section (4) requires every Rule to be laid as soon as may be before each House of the State Legislature for a total period of 30 days, in the manner prescribed. Draft, further to amend the Karnataka Excise Licences (General Conditions) Rules, 1967, was published in the Karnataka Gazette on 20.02.2013, inviting the objections and suggestions from all persons likely to be affected thereby within 7 days and the Gazette was made available to the public on the very day. Petitioners or any other person having not filed objections and/or suggestions, the State in exercise of the power conferred by Section 71 of the Act made the Karnataka Excise Licences (General Conditions) (Amendment) Rules, 2013. In the draft, it was made clear that the amended Rule would come into effect on 01.03.2013. Considering the urgency with which the State wanted to proceed, the date having been specified in the draft, it cannot be said that the State denied reasonable opportunity and has not followed the due procedure in making the amendment. 10. Dr. S. Arumugham, contended that the amended Rule is arbitrary, unguided and has not been made to carryout the purposes of the Act. The contention is devoid of merit. 10. Dr. S. Arumugham, contended that the amended Rule is arbitrary, unguided and has not been made to carryout the purposes of the Act. The contention is devoid of merit. The State having taken a policy decision, amended the Rule i.e., the fee payable in the matter of transfer of licence/s. The object of the Act as is clear from its provisions is to control and regulate the manufacture and sale of liquors. For the said purpose, licences are issued subject to certain conditions. Compliance with the licence conditions is inevitable for renewal or transfer of licence/s. To ensure the compliance, the Government has a separate Excise Department with hierarchy of Officers entrusted with the duty of inspection etc. The expenses incurred in carrying out regular inspections etc., is considerable. The transfer fee levied has been increased to twice the amount by the Government. It is a reasonable increase keeping in view the fact that the expenditure incurred by the Government in carrying out the regulatory activities for attaining the object of the Act would have proportionately increased. Hence, the increase of the amount is neither arbitrary nor unreasonable and cannot be considered as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Re-question No.2: 11. The State has the exclusive privilege of manufacture and sale of liquor. No citizen has a fundamental right to carry on trade or business in liquors. The applicants do not have a vested right to get the excise licence/s. since there is no vested right, the application/s filed for transfer of licence/s require verification, inspection and processing and also the obtaining of approval of the Excise Commissioner. Hence, instant decision on the application/s cannot be taken by the Deputy Commissioner/s or the Excise Commissioner. There is no unreasonable delay in the matter of consideration of the application/s. 12. In the case of STATE OF TAMIL NADU vs. M/s. HIND STONE ( AIR 1981 SC 711 ), Apex Court, considering the validity of the Government action in keeping the application pending for long and rejecting the same by applying the Rule subsequently made, while holding such action is not open to challenge has held as follows: “13. In the case of STATE OF TAMIL NADU vs. M/s. HIND STONE ( AIR 1981 SC 711 ), Apex Court, considering the validity of the Government action in keeping the application pending for long and rejecting the same by applying the Rule subsequently made, while holding such action is not open to challenge has held as follows: “13. Another submission of the learned counsel in connection with the consideration of applications for renewal was that applications made sixty days or more before the date of G.O.Ms.No.1312 (2-12-1977) should be dealt with as if Rule 8C had not come into force. It was also contended that even applications for grant of leases made long before the date of G.O. Ms. No.1312 should be dealt with as if Rule 8C had not come into force. The submission was that it was not open to the Government to keep applications for the grant of leases and applications for renewal pending for a long time and then to reject them on the basis of Rule 8C notwithstanding the fact that the applications had been made long prior to the date on which Rule 8C came into force. While it is true that such applications should be dealt with within a reasonable time, it cannot on that account be said that the right to have an application disposed of in a reasonable time clothes an applicant for a lease with a right to have the application disposed of on the basis of the rules in force at the time of the making of the application. None has a vested right to the grant or renewal of a lease and none can claim a vested right to have an application for the grant or renewal of a lease dealt with in a particular way, by applying particular provisions. In the absence of any vested rights in anyone, an application for a lease has necessarily to be dealt with according to the rules in force on the date of the disposal of the application despite the fact that there is a long delay since the making of the application. We are, therefore, unable to accept the submission of the learned counsel that applications for the grant of renewal of leases made long prior to the date of G.O.Ms.No.1312 should be dealt with as if Rule 8C did not exist.” 13. We are, therefore, unable to accept the submission of the learned counsel that applications for the grant of renewal of leases made long prior to the date of G.O.Ms.No.1312 should be dealt with as if Rule 8C did not exist.” 13. In the case of UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS vs. INDIAN CHARGE CHROME AND ANOTHER ( (1999) 7 SCC 314 ), Apex Court, while considering a similar contention has held as follows: “17. Coming to the fourth point, in so far as the refusal to register the contract with M/s. Asea Stal is concerned, no fault can be found therewith. Mere making of an application for registration does not confer any vested right in the applicant. The application has to be decided in accordance with the law applicable on the date on which the authority granting the registration is called upon to apply its mind to the prayer for registration. The correspondence between the parties shows that further information-material in nature and having impact on acceptability of the respondent’s prayer-was called for from the applicant and therefore the prayer was not ripe for consideration. In between there were drastic changes in the factual matrix. The exemption notification had stood clarified and Project Imports (Registration of Contract) Regulations, 1965 under which the application for registration was made had stood superseded by Project Imports Regulations, 1986. No fault can be found with the refusal to register the contract. We find no merit in the submission of the learned senior counsel for the respondent that one application for registration having been moved in respect of the two contracts and the goods forming subject matter of the two contracts being complementary to each other for the purpose of erecting the power plant, the registration of one of the contracts having been allowed, the prayer for registration of the other contract could not have been refused. Though the refusal to register the respondent’s contract with M/s. Asea Stal as contained in the letter of Assistant Collector of Customs, Paradeep dated 17.8.1987 is being upheld, we would like to make it clear that this refusal has to be read in the light of the averments made in the application dated 28.1.1986 of the respondent wherein it was stated that the registration of the contract was sought for securing the benefit of the Exemption Notification No.71/85-cus. of 17.3.1985 and thereby treating the respondent’s imports for power project assessable at nil duty. If the respondent’s contract is entitled for registration for any purpose other than the one mentioned in the application, i.e., seeking exemption from payment of customs duty on the plea of the imports being referable to power project, the rejection would not come in the way of the respondent pressing its prayer for registration of the contract for such other purpose. Such an application, if made, shall be dealt with and disposed of by the authority concerned in accordance with law.” (emphasis supplied by me) 14. In the case of STATE OF KERALA AND ANOTHER vs. B. SIX HOLIDAY RESORTS PRIVATE LIMITED AND OTHERS ( (2010) 5 SCC 186 ), material facts were, that an application was made for FL-3 licence under the Foreign Liquor Rules framed under Abkari Act and the said application having not been considered, the applicant filed a writ petition and the same was disposed of with a direction to the Excise Authorities to consider and dispose of the application within three weeks. The application upon consideration was rejected. During the pendency of the matter before the Excise Authorities, the Rules were amended by way of substitution. The applicant challenged the amendment to the Rule and the consequential rejection of the application. High Court held that the application ought to have been considered with reference to the Rules existing on the date of application and not on the date of consideration of the application. State of Kerala questioned the said decision on the ground that the High Court ought not to have directed the application for FL-3 licence to be considered with reference to the Rules in force when the application was submitted. While considering the issue, whether an application for grant of FL-3 should be considered with reference to the Rules on the date when the application was made or in accordance with the Rules in force on the date of consideration, Apex Court, has held as follows: “28. Having regard to the fact that the State has exclusive privilege of manufacture and sale of liquor, and no citizen has a fundamental right to carry on trade or business in liquor, the applicant did not have a vested right to get a licence. Where there is no vested right, the application for licence requires verification, inspection and processing. Having regard to the fact that the State has exclusive privilege of manufacture and sale of liquor, and no citizen has a fundamental right to carry on trade or business in liquor, the applicant did not have a vested right to get a licence. Where there is no vested right, the application for licence requires verification, inspection and processing. In such circumstances it has to be held that the consideration of application of FL-3 licence should be only with reference to the rules/law prevailing or in force on the date of consideration of the application by the excise authorities, with reference to the law and not as on the date of application. Consequently the direction by the High Court that the application for licence should be considered with reference to the Rules as they existed on the date of application cannot be sustained.” (emphasis supplied by me) 15. For the reasons aforesaid, as well as the reasons recorded in the above reproduced Judgments, I do not find any merit in the contentions urged by the Learned Advocates for the petitioners. The writ petitions being devoid of merit are dismissed with no order as to costs. However, it is made clear that the dismissal of the writ petitions would not come in the way of respondents considering the application/s of the petitioner/s, upon payment of the stipulated fee and complying with the lawful requirements.