ORDER : The Petitioner in both the cases Sachin S/o Basalingappa Hanji is aggrieved by the impugned endorsement Annexure-A dated 31.01.2018 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Excise, Belagavi District, Belagavi, in one case for CL-2 license and in another petition for CL-9 license on the ground that the Petitioner Sachin S/o Basalingappa Hanji and his mother Smt. Rajashree Basalingappa Hanji were having 50% share capital in the partnership firm M/s. Sachin Wines and M/s. New Millennium Bar and Restaurant in question and after the death of mother Smt. Rajashree Basalingappa Hanji on 08.06.2017, for transfer of license in favour of the Petitioner Sachin S/o Basalingappa Hanji as proprietor, the Respondent – Excise Department cannot demand the transfer fee under Rule 17B of the Karnataka Excise Licenses (General Conditions) Rules, 1967. 2. The learned counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. G.K. Bhat contended before the Court that such a case would fall within the ambit of Rule 17A of the said Rules and not under Rule 17B as discussed and interpreted by this Court in the judgment rendered on 22.08.2017 in the case of M/s. Shankar Wines v. the Commissioner of Excise in Karnataka and another in W.P.No.30590/2014 c/w W.P.No.56657/2014 which is relied upon by the Deputy Commissioner of Excise, Belagavi District, Belagavi, in the present case. 3. Having heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the State in both the cases, this Court is satisfied that the present writ petitions are liable to be dismissed and the controversy in the case is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in the case of M/s. Shankar Wines v. the Commissioner of Excise in Karnataka and another in W.P. No. 30590/2014 c/w W.P.No.56657/2014. 4. The learned authority in the impugned endorsement dated 31.01.2018 in W.P. No. 5764/2018 has held as under: “The Hon’ble Excise Commissioner by his letter under reference to states that in M/s Sachin Wines, CL-2 licensee there were two partners by name Sachin Basalingappa Hanji and Smt.Rajashree Basalingappa Hanji having 50% share capital. Among them Smt. Basalingappa Hanji is stated to be died on 08.06.2017. Since Smt. Rajashree Basalingappa Hanji has died and since the other partner Sachin Basalingappa Hanji has not taken any other person as partner. The said firm becomes solely owned proprietorship of Sri. Sachin Basalingappa Hanji. Hence the partnership firm ends. Among them Smt. Basalingappa Hanji is stated to be died on 08.06.2017. Since Smt. Rajashree Basalingappa Hanji has died and since the other partner Sachin Basalingappa Hanji has not taken any other person as partner. The said firm becomes solely owned proprietorship of Sri. Sachin Basalingappa Hanji. Hence the partnership firm ends. In such situation steps to be initiated for transfer of license under Rule 17(B) of the Karnataka Excise Licenses (General Conditions) Rule 1967. The Hon’ble High Court in W.P. No. 30590/2014 (Excise) c/w W.P.No.56657/2014 (Excise) of M/s. Shankar Wines and M/s Blue Pecoc Ventures Vs. Excise Commissioner and another, in the event if the said business is not partnership business, the license could be transfer under Rule 17(A), by joining the legal heirs. But since it is a partnership business as one partner died and only one person remains the partnership ends and to continue such business, the transfer has to be taken by remitting fees under Rule 17(B). Therefore the said proposed be once again carefully examined and by taking action as per the directions of the High Court suitable proposed be sent to the Excise Commissioner. Therefore, the licensee is hereby directed to remit the license fee and additional license fee as per Rule 17(B) of the Karnataka Excise Licenses (General Conditions) Rules 1967 and remittance challan be submitted to this office.” 5. This Court in the case of M/s. Shankar Wines in paragraph 24 dealt with, exactly a similar situation of conversion of the partnership firm into a proprietorship concern on account of death of one of the partners and no new partner being admitted in the said partnership firm to continue the business as a partnership firm. This Court held that even in such case, Rule 17B will apply attracting the levy of transfer fees. 6. Paragraph 24 of the said judgment is quoted below for ready reference. “24. It is also clarified that the aforesaid Rule 17-B will also stand attracted in the cases where there are only two partners. For example, A and B, each having 50% of shares and one partner B retires, but no new partner is taken in and firm M/s. AB is converted into a proprietorship concern of Mr. A. This will also attract transfer fee, if the proprietorship concern of Mr. For example, A and B, each having 50% of shares and one partner B retires, but no new partner is taken in and firm M/s. AB is converted into a proprietorship concern of Mr. A. This will also attract transfer fee, if the proprietorship concern of Mr. A seeks such transfer of the licence under Rule 17-B. In the same case, even though the share of Mr. A may be 70% and share of Mr. B is only 30%, but since with the B’s retirement no new partner is taken in, the change would convert a partnership firm into a proprietorship concern of Mr. A and it will still attract the transfer fee and if Mr. A wants the Licence to be transferred in the name of Mr. A as a proprietorship concern, A will have to pay the transfer fees. This additional point also requires a clarification because even if the Excise Licencee does not continue in the form of partnership firm, but such a change converts a partnership firm into a proprietorship concern or vice-versa ie., a proprietorship concern becoming a partnership firm, such cases would also attract Rule 17-B, irrespective of aforesaid rule of 50% or more of change in share or in other words effective control of the partnership firm.” 7. The contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioner that Rule 17A would apply, is misconceived. Apparently, Rule 17A applies only where the license is held in the name of a single person and upon the death of the licensee himself / herself, the legal heirs of the deceased licensee could apply for transfer of license in their favour. The present case is not of that type and admittedly, in the partnership firm, the son Sachin Basalingappa Hanji and mother Smt. Rajashree Basalingappa Hanji were carrying on the business as partners and after the death of one partner Smt.Rajashree Basalingappa Hanji, the son Sachin Basalingappa Hanji applied for transfer of license. 8. Therefore, it is not a case of his application as a legal heir of the deceased sole licensee under Rule 17A. It was the case of partnership, which by the factual circumstances got reduced to a proprietorship concern and accordingly, the Respondent No.3 has rightly applied paragraph 24 of the aforesaid judgment in the case of M/s. Shankar Wines quoted above. 9. It was the case of partnership, which by the factual circumstances got reduced to a proprietorship concern and accordingly, the Respondent No.3 has rightly applied paragraph 24 of the aforesaid judgment in the case of M/s. Shankar Wines quoted above. 9. The present writ petitions are therefore liable to be dismissed and the same are accordingly dismissed. No costs.