JUDGMENT : K.K. SASIDHARAN, J. 1. The appellants enjoyed the privilege of FL3 licence continuously for years together and when demand was made to pay the privilege fee, they have filed Writ Petitions challenging the levy, primarily on the ground that four star gradation and three star gradation were not renewed periodically and as such, there is no liability to pay the fee as claimed by the Excise Department. BRIEF FACTS: W.A. (MD) No. 496 of 2008 [against W.P. (MD) No. 1080 of 2008]: 2. The appellant established a Hotel in the name and style of 'Hotel Sangam' at Collector's Office Road, Tiruchirappalli. The Hotel was classified as a four star hotel for a period of three years with effect from 16 November, 1993. The appellant obtained FL3 licence based on the four star classification. The Licensing Authority issued the licence and it was renewed periodically. The Licensing Authority made it clear that the renewal was subject to the condition that the licensee shall pay the difference of privilege fee. In order to renew the FL3 licence further, the Excise Department demanded the arrears of privilege fee. The demand was challenged in W.P. (MD) No.1080 of 2008. W.A. (MD) No. 497 of 2008 [against W.P. (MD) No. 1487 of 2008]: 3. The appellant established a hotel at Trichy Road, Thanjavur. The Hotel was not having any star classification initially. The appellant obtained 3 star classification with effect from 29 January, 2001. The classification was valid for a period of four years. The appellant obtained FL3 licence on the basis of classification. The licence was renewed periodically subject to payment of the applicable privilege fee. Since the correct amount was not paid while renewing the licence, it was renewed with a condition that the appellant is liable to pay the differential privilege fee. Finally, the Excise Department demanded the arrears of licence fee. The demand was challenged in W.P.(MD)No.1487 of 2008. 4. Before the learned Single Judge, the Excise Department filed separate counter-affidavits and justified the demand. 5. The learned Single Judge considered the contentions taken by the appellants, in the light of the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Liquor (Licence and Permit) Rules, 1981 and dismissed the Writ Petitions. Feeling aggrieved, the appellants have come up with these two intra-Court appeals. SUBMISSIONS: 6. 5. The learned Single Judge considered the contentions taken by the appellants, in the light of the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Liquor (Licence and Permit) Rules, 1981 and dismissed the Writ Petitions. Feeling aggrieved, the appellants have come up with these two intra-Court appeals. SUBMISSIONS: 6. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in order to conduct a star Hotel, the Government of India have to give permission. The appellants have not applied for gradation on account of the ongoing renovation work. Since there was no licence to conduct a four star category hotel, there was no liability to pay licence fee calculated on the ground that the privilege was to conduct a bar in a four star Hotel. 7. The learned Government Advocate supported the impugned common order passed by the learned Single Judge. DISCUSSION: 8. The Hotel Sangam at Tiruchirappalli and Thanjavur are owned by the Sangu Chakra Hotels Private Limited. The Hotel Sangam, Trichy, was awarded four star gradation initially for a period of three years from 16 November, 1993 to 15 November, 1996. Since it was a four star hotel, the appellant in W.A.(MD)No. 496 2008 submitted application for FL3 licence. The Excise Department issued FL3 licence. The licence was renewed periodically. The Hotel, for reasons best known, failed to apply for renewal of four star gradation. However, the fact remains that the Hotel continue to operate the bar. 9. The payment of privilege fee is governed by the provisions of Tamil Nadu Liquor (Licence and Permit) Rules, 1981. The Hotel was expected to pay the applicable licence fee for its FL3 licence. The Licensing Authority was not bound to check as to whether the appellant was having four star gradation. It is not as if, for one year, the licence would be granted on the strength of four star gradation and it would be renewed during the next year treating it as a three star Hotel. The licensee is bound to pay the licence fee on the basis of the licence issued. The failure on the part of the appellant in W.A.(MD)No.496 of 2008 to renew the four star category cannot be a reason to avoid payment of licence fee. 10. In the case of Hotel Sangam at Thanjavur also [W.A. (MD) No. 497 of 2008], the licence was granted treating it as a three star category Hotel. The licence was renewed periodically. 10. In the case of Hotel Sangam at Thanjavur also [W.A. (MD) No. 497 of 2008], the licence was granted treating it as a three star category Hotel. The licence was renewed periodically. The appellant agreed to pay the privilege fee applicable to a three star category Hotel. The appellant enjoyed the benefits of FL3 licence. It was only when the Excise Department demanded payment of arrears, the appellant has come out with a contention that they have not applied for renewal of three star category and as such, there is no liability to pay the licence fee. 11. The learned Single Judge, on the basis of the materials available on record, arrived at a factual finding that after obtaining the star status and the FL3 licence, the appellants enjoyed the privilege for years together. It was only when a demand was made to pay the actual privilege fee, the appellants have filed the Writ Petitions on the ground that in view of the renovation work, they have not applied for renewal. However, that was not the case when the licence was renewed periodically by the Excise Authority. In fact, the Excise Department has taken up a specific contention in the counter-affidavit that the Hotel has been provided with all the facilities applicable to a four star Hotel and they have been running a full-fledged star Hotel with bar. The appellants have not denied the said contention. Therefore, it is very clear that only for the purpose of avoiding the statutory liability of payment of privilege fee, the appellants have filed the Writ Petitions. The common order passed by the learned Single Judge is unassailable. We are, therefore, of the view that no interference is called for in the common order in W.P. (MD) Nos. 1080 and 1487 of 2008. 12. In the upshot, we dismiss the intra-Court appeals. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed.