Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1046 (KER)

State of Kerala v. Hotel Elegance

2016-11-29

A.M.BABU, P.N.RAVINDRAN

body2016
JUDGMENT : P.N. Ravindran, J. Can a hotelier or a restauranter, who possesses a licence in Form FL-11, issued under rule 13(11) of the Foreign Liquor Rules, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules" for short), sell beer in bottles, for consumption outside the licensed premises, is the short question that arises for consideration in this writ appeal. A learned single Judge of this court held, by judgment delivered on 18.10.2016 in W.P.(C) No.22730 of 2016, that, there is no stipulation in such licences, prohibiting such sales. The State of Kerala and the other respondents in W.P.(C)No.22730 of 2016 have, aggrieved thereby, filed this writ appeal. The brief facts of the case are as follows: 2. The sole respondent in this appeal, a firm represented by its managing partner, has established and is running a three star hotel under the name and style "Hotel Elegance" at Kanjirappally. Its partners possessed an FL-3 licence issued under rule 11(3) of the Rules, which was valid and current till 31.3.2015. In view of the policy decision taken by the State Government to confine the grant/renewal of FL-3 licences to five star and five star deluxe hotels and the consequential amendments to the Rules, the partners of the respondent firm applied for a licence in Form FL-11 to vend beer/wine in the hotel. Ext. P1 licence was thereupon issued on 4.5.2015, licensing the partners of the respondent firm to vend beer/wine at the premises of Hotel Elegance, Kanjirappally, subject to the terms and conditions stipulated therein, for the period ending with 31.3.2016. It was renewed on 28.3.2016, for a period of one year, commencing from 1.4.2016. 3. While matters stood thus, on getting information that beer in bottles is being sold from Hotel Elegance for consumption outside, the Excise Inspector, Excise Range, Kanjirappally inspected the premises of the hotel at about 8 pm on 19.6.2016. He then found that one Toji V. George, S/o. V.M. George, who was attempting to leave the parking ground of Hotel Elegance on a motor bike, had in his possession, three bottles of beer in a plastic bag. The Excise Inspector seized the said three bottles of beer, after preparing Ext. P2 mahazar. He also registered Cr. No.41 of 2016 of Kanjirappally Range, alleging commission of the offence punishable under section 56(b) of the Abkari Act, as can be seen from Ext. The Excise Inspector seized the said three bottles of beer, after preparing Ext. P2 mahazar. He also registered Cr. No.41 of 2016 of Kanjirappally Range, alleging commission of the offence punishable under section 56(b) of the Abkari Act, as can be seen from Ext. P3 crime and occurrence report against the licensees and the salesmen. W.P.(C)No.22730 of 2016 was thereupon filed in this court, praying for the following reliefs: "(i.) declare that as per Ext. P1 FL-11 license and as per condition No.2 in Ext. P1 license, there is no prohibition for sale of beer bottle wise to a person for consuming within the premises specified in the license and even for removal outside the hotel; (ii.) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents not to interfere with the sale of the beer bottle wise by the petitioner and his workers to any person as per Ext. P1 license for consumption within the premises specified in Ext. P1 license and even for removal outside the hotel." 4. The writ petitioner contended that Ext. P1 licence does not contain a stipulation prohibiting retail sale of beer in bottles to any person for consumption outside the hotel, as in the case of FL-3 licences; that the Rules also do not prohibit such sales and therefore, the licensee is entitled to sell beer in bottles to any person, for consumption outside the hotel. It was contended that punitive action for such sales is without the sanction or authority of law. 5. The Circle Inspector of Excise, Ponkunnam filed a statement dated 30.9.2016 resisting the writ petition. Paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of the said statement read as follows: "2. The petitioner Hotel has been granted FL-11 Licence in terms of Rule 13(11) of the Foreign Liquor Rules (hereinafter referred to as "the FL Rules" for brevity and convenience). The licence is issued in Form No. FL-11 appended to the FL Rules. As per Condition No.2 of the FLII Licence, the sale of Beer/Wine in quantity less than one bottle at a time to a person is prohibited. It is further mandated therein that the Beer/Wine sold under the licence shall be permitted to be consumed only within the premises specified in the licence. As per Condition No.2 of the FLII Licence, the sale of Beer/Wine in quantity less than one bottle at a time to a person is prohibited. It is further mandated therein that the Beer/Wine sold under the licence shall be permitted to be consumed only within the premises specified in the licence. A perusal of schedule attached to Exhibit P1 licence read with Condition No.2 of the same will reveal that Beer/Wine sold in the petitioner Hotel could be consumed only within the Beer/Wine Parlour Room mentioned therein. 3. The Excise patrol party, on 19.06.2016, on receipt of prior information that Beer was being sold in retail at the petitioner Hotel, went to inspect the said Hotel. At the time, it was found that a person was seen coming out of the Hotel with a carry bag. When he was questioned, it was revealed that he had purchased 3 bottles of Beer from the petitioner Hotel and was taking it to somewhere else outside the Hotel for consumption. Further enquiries had revealed that the Beer seized from the said person belonged to the lot which was purchased by the petitioner Hotel for sale therein. 4. Thus it is clear that the petitioner Hotel had violated both the limbs of Condition No.2 of Ext. P1 FL-11 licence in so far as more than one bottle was sold to a purchaser at a time and that the sold Beer bottle was permitted to be taken out of the licenced premises. In the said circumstances, CR.No.41/16 of Kanjirappilly Range was registered against the 3 licences and the salesmen of the petitioner Hotel under Section 56(b) of the Abkari Act." 6. The respondents in the writ petition contended that on the terms of Ext. P1 licence, beer/wine can be sold only for consumption within the premises described in the licence and that, for violation of the said condition, Cr. No.41 of 2016 of Kanjirappally Range was registered against the licensees and the salesmen under section 56(b) of the Abkari Act. It was also contended that the bottles of beer seized from the person named in Ext. P2 mahazar were found to be part of the lot purchased by the writ petitioner, for sale in the licensed premises. 7. No.41 of 2016 of Kanjirappally Range was registered against the licensees and the salesmen under section 56(b) of the Abkari Act. It was also contended that the bottles of beer seized from the person named in Ext. P2 mahazar were found to be part of the lot purchased by the writ petitioner, for sale in the licensed premises. 7. The learned single Judge after considering the rival contentions held that, in the absence of a provision similar to the one contained in rule 13(3B) of the Rules and in the licence issued in Form FL-3, it is only reasonable to hold that the rule making authority did not intend to prohibit retail sale of beer in bottles, by an FL-11 licensee, for consumption outside the hotel. The learned single Judge also held that merely for the reason that the rules provide for a separate licence in Form FL-12, for the retail sale of beer in bottles for consumption outside the premises of the licensee, it cannot be said that licensees who hold FL-11 licences are not entitled to sell beer in bottles, for consumption outside the licensed premises. The learned single judge declared that there is no prohibition against selling beer for consumption outside the licensed premises. Consequently, the respondents were directed to refrain from interfering with such sales. The learned single Judge also observed that the said judgment will not preclude the State of Kerala from amending the Rules and incorporating a provision similar to rule 13(3B) in relation to FL-11 licences as well. The respondents in W.P.(C) No.22730 of 2016 have, aggrieved thereby, filed this writ appeal. 8. We heard Sri C.P.Sudhakara Prasad, learned Advocate General appearing for the appellants and Sri C.C. Thomas, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the respondent. The learned Advocate General contended, relying on rule 13(11) of the Rules and the conditions in Ext. P1 licence issued thereunder that the licence issued to the partners of the writ petitioner firm is to vend beer/wine at the premises of the hotel, for consumption only within the premises described in the licence; thereby making it clear that such sales cannot be for consumption outside the premises mentioned in the licence. P1 licence issued thereunder that the licence issued to the partners of the writ petitioner firm is to vend beer/wine at the premises of the hotel, for consumption only within the premises described in the licence; thereby making it clear that such sales cannot be for consumption outside the premises mentioned in the licence. Inviting our attention to rule 13(12) of the Rules, the learned Advocate General submitted that licence for retail sale of beer in bottles without permission for consumption in the premises from where it is sold, is granted only to the Kerala State Co-operative Consumers Federation, that retail sale of beer in bottles without permission for consumption in the licensed premises is governed by a licence issued under rule 13 (12) of the Rules, that the writ petitioner firm or its partners are not eligible to obtain such a licence and therefore, the learned single Judge erred in relying on rule 13(3B) and the terms and conditions of the licence issued in Form FL-3 to hold that there is no prohibition in rule 13(11) of the Rules or in the FL-11 licence against such sales. 9. The learned Advocate General invited our attention to section 18A of the Abkari Act and submitted that no one has a fundamental right to carry on business in liquor, that the privilege granted by the Government to any person or persons for selling by retail, any liquor or intoxicating drug, is subject to the terms and conditions stipulated in the licence issued for that purpose and therefore, as the terms of the licence clearly spell out the conditions subject to which beer can be sold by the writ petitioner, the learned single Judge erred in holding that the Rules and the terms and conditions of the licence do not prohibit retail sale of beer in bottles by a FL-11 licensee, for consumption outside the licensed premises. The learned Advocate General submitted that section 24 of the Abkari Act stipulates that every licence or permit granted under the Act shall be granted subject to such restrictions and such conditions as the Government may direct either generally or in any particular instance, that rule 13(11) of the Rules stipulates that the licence issued thereunder is for serving beer or wine to the public in a separate room meant for the purpose, that under the first and second provisos to sub-rule (11) of rule 13, in a given case, on payment of the requisite rental, such licence may permit the licensee to serve beer or wine along with meals by the side of swimming pools and in the lawns and roof gardens of the hotel and also in another room within the premises described in the licence, subject to the conditions enumerated therein and therefore, the writ petitioner's contention that the FL-11 licence issued to its partners does not prohibit it from selling in retail, beer in bottles for consumption outside the licensed premises, is plainly untenable. 10. The learned Advocate General also contended that such retail sales of beer for consumption outside the licensed premises can be done only by a licensee who has obtained a FL-12 licence, that presently such licences are issued only to the Kerala State Cooperative Consumers Federation and therefore, the writ petitioner cannot contend for the position that it is entitled to exploit the FL-11 licence issued to its partners by effecting retail sales of beer in bottles, for consumption outside the licensed premises. Referring to the terms and conditions of Ext. Referring to the terms and conditions of Ext. P1 licence, the learned Advocate General submitted that the Deputy Commissioner of Excise, Kottayam has licensed the partners of the writ petitioner firm to vend beer/wine at the premises of the hotel, only for consumption within the premises specified in the licence and therefore, merely for the reason that as in the case of a FL-3 licence issued under rule 13(3) of the Rules, it is not expressly stipulated in rule 13(11) of the Rules that no liquor shall be sold under FL-11 licences to any one including residents of the hotel for removal outside the hotel or for the reason that unlike in a FL-3 licence, there is no stipulation in an FL-11 licence to the effect that no liquor shall be sold for removal outside the hotel to any one including the residents of hotel, it cannot be said that the licensee has the freedom to effect retail sales of beer in bottles, for consumption outside the licensed premises. The learned Advocate General submitted that the privilege granted under Ext. P1 licence is to vend beer and that too only for consumption in the licensed premises, and merely for the reason that it is stated in Ext. P1 licence that the beer sold under that licence "shall be permitted to be consumed only within the premises specified in the licence," it does not ipso facto follow that what is not prohibited is permissible in law. 11. Per contra, Sri C.C. Thomas, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the respondent (writ petitioner) contended that in rule 13(3B) of the Rules, it is stipulated that no liquor shall be sold under the licences issued under rule 13(3) of the Rules for removal outside the hotel to any one including the residents of the hotel, that in condition No.2 of every FL-3 licence, it is stipulated that "no liquor shall be sold under this licence for removal outside the hotel to any one including residents of the hotel" but in licences issued in Form FL- 11 under rule 13(11) of the Rules, there is no such stipulation and therefore, as the rule making authority did not intend to and has not prohibited retail sales of beer under such a licence for consumption outside the hotel, the appellants cannot contend that such retail sales of beer in bottles are prohibited. The learned Senior Advocate also submitted that the expression "within the premises specified in the licence" occurring in condition No.2 of Ext. P1 licence, issued under rule 13(11B) of the Rules, is relevant only for the purpose of consumption within the premises, that it does not restrict or regulate the retail sale of beer as such and therefore, the learned single Judge was right in holding that condition No.2 cannot be construed as one intending to prohibit the retail sales of beer in bottles, for consumption outside the licensed premises. The learned Senior Advocate further submitted that as rule 13(11) and the conditions of Ext. P1 licence issued thereunder do not expressly stipulate that the licensee shall not effect retail sales of liquor to any person for consumption outside the licensed premises, no interference is called for with the impugned judgment. The learned senior counsel also submitted that if the State wants to prohibit such retail sales of beer in bottles, for consumption outside the licensed premises, the impugned judgment will not stand in the way of the State from appropriately amending the Rules and that, the last sentence in the impugned judgment protects the right of the State in that regard. 12. We have considered the submissions made at the Bar by learned counsel appearing on either side. We have also gone through the impugned judgment, the pleadings and the materials on record and the relevant statutory provisions. It is now well settled that no one has a fundamental right to carry on business in liquor. The term "foreign liquor" occurring in the Rules has been defined in rule 1A thereof, to include beer as well. The term "foreign liquor" as defined in section 3(13) of the Abkari Act includes all liquor other than country liquor. The expression "beer" is defined in section 3(11) of the Abkari Act as follows: "3(11) Beer.- "Beer" includes ale, stout, porter and all other fermented liquors usually made from malt." 13. From the aforesaid definitions it is clear that beer is also a liquor and its sale is governed by the Abkari Act and the Rules. The expression "beer" is defined in section 3(11) of the Abkari Act as follows: "3(11) Beer.- "Beer" includes ale, stout, porter and all other fermented liquors usually made from malt." 13. From the aforesaid definitions it is clear that beer is also a liquor and its sale is governed by the Abkari Act and the Rules. Section 18A of the Abkari Act empowers the Government, to grant to any person or persons on such conditions and for such period as it may deem fit, the exclusive or other privilege of selling by retail, any liquor or intoxicating drugs, within any local area, on his or their payment to the Government, of an amount as rental, in consideration of the grant of such privilege. Section 24 of the Abkari Act stipulates that every license or permit granted under the Act shall be granted on payment of such fees, if any, for such period, subject to such restrictions and on such conditions as the Government may direct either generally or in any particular instance, in this behalf. Section 56(b) of the Abkari Act stipulates that "whoever, being the holder of a licence or permit granted under the Act or being in the employ of such holder and acting on his behalf, wilfully does or omits to do anything in breach of any of the conditions of his license or permit not otherwise provided for in the Act, shall, on conviction before a Magistrate, be punished for each such offence with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to Rs.25,000/-, or with both." 14. Rule 13(11) of the Rules which governs the issue of a licence in Form FL-11 is extracted below: "13(11) Foreign Liquor 11 Beer/Wine Parlour Licence - [Beer/Wine Parlour licences in Form FL 11 shall be issued by the Commissioner of Excise under orders of Government to the hotels, motels, resorts and catering establishments owned and/or run by Kerala Tourism Development Corporation Limited and to hotels having classification of three star, four star, five star and five star deluxe, heritage, heritage grand or heritage classic in such places where FL-3 licence can be granted. FL-11 licence shall also be granted to the restaurants classified by Department of Tourism Government of Kerala, restaurants approved by Ministry of Tourism Government of India and hotels having one and two star classification of Ministry of Tourism, Government of India, in tourist centres approved by the Government in Taxes Department. The annual rental shall be Rs.4,00,000/- (rupees four lakhs only) for each Beer/Wine Parlour. The licensee shall procure Beer/Wine only from the FL9 licensee in the State. Beer/Wine shall be served to the public only in a separate room meant for the purpose. The maximum strength at which Beer/Wine shall be sold are at 6% v/v and 12% v/v respectively. Distance limit subscribed under sub-rule (1) and sub-rule(3) shall apply to this licenses. Provided that the holder of an FL-11 licence may serve beer/wine along with meals by the side of swimming pools and in the lawns and roof gardens of the hotel if he obtains a special permit for the purpose, from the Commissioner of Excise, on payment of an additional annual rental of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) or such additional annual rental as may be prescribed by the Government from time to time. Provided further that the holder of an FL-11 licence may serve beer or wine in another room within the premises specified in the licence, in addition to the separate room meant for the purpose, if he obtains a special permit for the said purpose from the Commissioner of Excise, on payment of an additional annual rental of Rs.20,000 (Rupees twenty thousand only), subject to the condition that the licensee shall maintain a separate room exclusively for the use of families and others where no beer or wine shall be served." (emphasis supplied) 15. The main limb of rule 13(11) stipulates that the licensee shall procure beer/wine only from the FL9 licensee in the State. It is also stipulated that beer/wine shall be served to the public only in a separate room meant for the purpose. The main limb of rule 13(11) stipulates that the licensee shall procure beer/wine only from the FL9 licensee in the State. It is also stipulated that beer/wine shall be served to the public only in a separate room meant for the purpose. The first proviso to rule 13(11) stipulates that the holder of an FL-11 licence may serve beer/wine along with meals by the side of swimming pools and in the lawns and roof gardens of the hotel if he obtains a special permit for the purpose, from the Commissioner of Excise, on payment of an additional annual rental of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) or such additional annual rental, as may be prescribed by the Government from time to time. The second proviso stipulates that the holder of an FL-11 licence may serve beer or wine in another room within the premises specified in the licence, in addition to the separate room meant for the purpose, if he obtains a special permit for the said purpose from the Commissioner of Excise, on payment of an additional annual rental of Rs.20,000 (Rupees twenty thousand only), subject to the condition that the licensee shall maintain a separate room exclusively for the use of families and others, where no beer or wine shall be served. 16. As stated earlier, the license issued to the partners of the writ petitioner firm is one which licenses them to vend beer/wine at the premises of the hotel, subject to the conditions stipulated therein. In condition No.2 it is stipulated that the sale of beer in quantity less than one bottle at a time to a person is prohibited. It is also stipulated that the beer/wine thus sold shall be permitted to be consumed only within the premises described in the licence. It is stipulated in condition No.6 that separate accounts shall be maintained by the licensee for the purchase, sale and balance quantity of beer/wine every day. The licence also sets out the boundaries of the (beer/wine) parlour room, wherein only, beer/wine can be served. 17. It is evident from Ext. P1 licence that the licensee is licensed to vend beer only for consumption within the premises described in the licence. The licence also sets out the boundaries of the (beer/wine) parlour room, wherein only, beer/wine can be served. 17. It is evident from Ext. P1 licence that the licensee is licensed to vend beer only for consumption within the premises described in the licence. In the case of a hotel which has a swimming pool/lawn/roof garden, beer can be served along with meals in such areas, if the licensee obtains a special permit for the said purpose from the Commissioner of Excise, as stipulated in the first proviso to rule 13 (11). On the terms of rule 13(11), the licensee can also apply for permission to serve beer/wine in another room, within the premises specified in the licence, in addition to the separate room meant for the purpose, if he complies with the stipulations contained in the second proviso to the said rule. Rule 13(12)deals with issue of licence for retail sales of beer in bottles, without permission for consumption in the licensed premises. It is stipulated therein that the beer sold under such a licence shall not be permitted to be consumed within the premises specified in the licence. In the form of the licence issued under rule 13(12), it is stipulated that the licensee is licensed to vend beer at the premises owned/possessed by the Kerala State Cooperative Consumers Federation, subject to the conditions and stipulations to be observed by the said licensee. 18. It is evident from the stipulations in the licences issued in Form FL-11 and Form FL-12 that the licences authorise the respective licensees to vend beer at the premises described in the licence. While in the case of an FL-11 licence, such vending is for consumption within the premises specified in the licence, in the case of an FL-12 licence, it is not meant for consumption in the premises specified in the licence. FL-11 licences can be issued only to hotels, motels, resorts and catering establishments owned and/or run by Kerala Tourism Development Corporation Limited and to hotels having classification of three star, four star, five star and five star deluxe, heritage, heritage grand or heritage classic in such places where an FL-3 licence can be granted. FL-11 licences can be issued only to hotels, motels, resorts and catering establishments owned and/or run by Kerala Tourism Development Corporation Limited and to hotels having classification of three star, four star, five star and five star deluxe, heritage, heritage grand or heritage classic in such places where an FL-3 licence can be granted. FL-11 licence can also be granted to restaurants classified by the Department of Tourism, Government of Kerala, restaurants approved by the Ministry of Tourism, Government of India and hotels having one and two star classification of Ministry of Tourism, Government of India, in tourist centres approved by the Taxes Department of the State Government. It is evident from the scheme of rule 13 (11) that such licences are issued to enable the licensee to serve beer for consumption in a separate room meant for the purpose. The first and second provisos to rule 13(11) permit the licensed premises to be expanded to enable the licensee to serve beer for consumption along with meals, by the side of swimming pools and in the lawns and roof gardens of the hotel and in another room within the premises specified in the licence on payment of additional rental. In our considered opinion, a licensee who has obtained a licence under rule 13(11) of the Rules cannot rely on the terms of an FL-3 licence to contend that his rights have to be determined, having regard to the terms of that licence. 19. The contention of the writ petitioner is that as in the case of a licence issued in Form FL-3, there is no specific stipulation either in the Rules or in the licence issued in Form FL-11 which prohibits retail sales of beer in bottles, by the licensee to his customers. In our considered opinion, the said contention is plainly untenable. Though it was contended that the expression "within the premises specified in the licence" occurring in Ext. P1 licence relates to consumption within the premises and does not amount to a condition prohibiting retail sale of beer in bottles for consumption outside the licensed premises, we find no merit or force in the said contention as well. The licensees in the instant case were running a bar hotel till 31.3.2015. The licensees are also aware of the fact that different types of licences are issued under the Rules. The licensees in the instant case were running a bar hotel till 31.3.2015. The licensees are also aware of the fact that different types of licences are issued under the Rules. The licence applied for and obtained by the partners of the writ petitioner firm is one which licenses them to vend beer/wine at the premises of the hotel, for consumption within the hotel. The very licence, in our opinion, is one for that purpose and for that purpose alone. As what is permitted to be sold is liquor and as no one has a fundamental right to trade in liquor and such trade can be only in terms of a licence, the licensees cannot in our opinion be heard to contend that as consumption outside the licensed premises by the purchaser is not prohibited, they are entitled to exploit the licence by effecting such retail sales as well. The stipulation "beer/wine sold under this licence shall be permitted to be consumed only within the premises specified in the licence" occurring in condition No.2 of Ext. P1 licence, is in our opinion, not merely a condition governing the consumption of beer but a condition governing the sale for such consumption as well. As the licence does not permit the licensees to vend liquor for consumption outside the licensed premises, which licence is governed by rule 13(12), the licensees cannot in our opinion be heard to contend that they have been licensed to vend liquor from their hotel, for consumption outside the licensed premises. If that had been the intention of the rule making authority, there was no need or necessity to have different types of licences, viz. for consumption within the premises of the licensee and consumption elsewhere. The writ petitioner firm or its partners have no right in law to apply for and obtain a licence in Form FL-12 issued under Rule 13(12) of the Rules. Such licences, as stated earlier, can be issued only to the Kerala State Co-operative Consumers Federation. The writ petitioner cannot therefore sell beer in bottles, for consumption outside the licensed premises, as such right is presently available only to the Kerala State Co-operative Consumers Federation. Such licences, as stated earlier, can be issued only to the Kerala State Co-operative Consumers Federation. The writ petitioner cannot therefore sell beer in bottles, for consumption outside the licensed premises, as such right is presently available only to the Kerala State Co-operative Consumers Federation. The finding entered by the learned single Judge that in the absence of conditions identical to the one occurring in rule 13(3B) of the Rules and in the licence issued in Form FL-3, a prohibition on retail sales of beer in bottles by an FL-11 licence, for consumption outside the licensed premises, cannot be imposed, cannot therefore in our opinion, be sustained. 20. As stated earlier, the Rules contemplate grant of different types of licences to different classes and categories of persons. The contention of the writ petitioner is that what is not expressly prohibited should be deemed to be permissible. Such a proposition cannot in our opinion be extended to and applied in the case of business in liquor, for the reason that no one has a fundamental right to carry on business in liquor. Business in liquor can be carried on, only in accordance with the rules and in strict compliance with the terms and conditions of the licence issued by the competent authority. Merely for the reason that the rules governing beer parlours and bar hotels could have been identically worded, it does not ipso facto follow that rule 13 (11) does not prohibit retail sales of beer in bottles for consumption outside the licensed premises. Such retail sales are governed by rule 13(12) of the Rules. So long as the writ petitioner firm does not possess a licence issued under rule 13(12) of the Rules and it or its partners are not eligible for such a licence, the writ petitioner cannot in our opinion contend that it can vend beer in bottles for consumption outside the licensed premises. 21. For the reasons stated above, we allow this writ appeal, reverse the judgment of the learned single Judge and dismiss the writ petition, but without any order as to costs.