JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner who is the Managing Partner of a partnership firm by name and style 'Hotel Salkara' covered by Ext.P3 deed of partnership dated 28.4.2017 is before this Court in this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P7 order dated 21.2.2018 of the Commissioner of Excise, the 2nd respondent herein, to the extent of requiring the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.20 lakhs for reconstitution of Ext.P1 partnership deed dated 14.10.2007, on account of the death of K.D.Antony, who was the Managing Partner, by inducting his son and legal heir Joseph Antony as partner, and a further sum of Rs.20 lakhs for changing the name of the licensee in Ext.P2(c) FL 11 licence for the year 2017-18 issued by the 4th respondent Deputy Commissioner of Excise, Malappuram on account of the death of the existing licensee representing the partnership. The petitioner has also sought for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to permit him to run the beer and wine parlour covered by Ext.P2(c) licence and Exts.P7 and P8 orders without insisting payment of a fee of Rs.40 lakhs for induction of the legal heir of the deceased Managing Partner and for allowing change of name in Ext.P2(c) licence on account of death of the existing licensee representing the partnership firm. Ext.P8 order is one passed by the 2nd respondent, the Commissioner of Excise, sanctioning shifting of the licensed premises. 2. During the pendency of this writ petition, the petitioner has filed I.A.No.3775 of 2018 seeking an interim order directing the respondents to permit him to run the beer and wine parlour covered by Ext.P2(c) license and Exts.P7 and P8 orders on furnishing bank guarantee for the amount of fee demanded in Ext.P7 order, pending disposal of this writ petition. The said interlocutory application was followed by I.A.No.4202 of 2018 filed by the petitioner seeking an order to accept Ext.P10 bank guarantee dated 1.3.2018 for a sum of Rs.40 lakhs, taken in favour of the 4th respondent. 3. A statement dated 1.3.2018 has been filed on behalf of the 4th respondent opposing the reliefs sought for in the writ petition. The said interlocutory application was followed by I.A.No.4202 of 2018 filed by the petitioner seeking an order to accept Ext.P10 bank guarantee dated 1.3.2018 for a sum of Rs.40 lakhs, taken in favour of the 4th respondent. 3. A statement dated 1.3.2018 has been filed on behalf of the 4th respondent opposing the reliefs sought for in the writ petition. In the said statement, it is contended that as per the 2nd proviso to Rule 19(iv) of the Foreign Liquor Rules, 1953, constitution/re-constitution of partnership of a hotel which do not have two star classification will be allowed only on payment of Rs.20 lakhs for each partner. The petitioner's hotel is having only one star classification. As per Ext.P3, the partnership is re-constituted by inducting the legal heir of the deceased Managing Partner. As per the 3rd proviso to Rule 19(iv), change of name of licensee of hotel which do not have two star classification shall be allowed only on payment of Rs.20 lakhs. Therefore, as per the 3rd proviso to Rule 19(iv), the transfer of licence in the name of the petitioner can be regularised only on payment of a further sum of Rs.20 lakhs. The statement dated 1.3.2018 was followed by a counter affidavit filed by the 4th respondent. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 5. 5. The pleadings and materials on record would show that the hotel in question with one star classification was run by a partnership firm registered under the provisions of the Partnership Act, 1932. Ext.P1 is a copy of the partnership deed dated 14.10.2007. Altogether there were six partners and the partnership was one at will. As per clause 13 of Ext.P1 partnership deed, one major legal heir of the deceased partner can be admitted in the place of the deceased partner, if he opts for the same, or else he will be given his due share according to the terms of the partnership. Ext.P2 is the FL 11 licence for the year 2014-15 issued in favour of Sri K.D.Antony, who was the Managing Partner of the partnership. The said licence was renewed for the year 2015-16 and 2016-17 vide Exts.P2(a) and P2(b) renewal certificates. As per Ext.P2(b), the name of the licensee is K.D.Antony and the name of the firm is 'Hotel Salkara'. Ext.P2 is the FL 11 licence for the year 2014-15 issued in favour of Sri K.D.Antony, who was the Managing Partner of the partnership. The said licence was renewed for the year 2015-16 and 2016-17 vide Exts.P2(a) and P2(b) renewal certificates. As per Ext.P2(b), the name of the licensee is K.D.Antony and the name of the firm is 'Hotel Salkara'. Ext.P2(c) is the renewal certificate for the year 2017- 18, wherein Sri K.D.Antony is shown as the licensee. 6. On the death of K.D.Antony, the partnership was re-constituted vide Ext.P3 deed of partnership, by admitting his son and legal heir Joseph Antony as a partner. As per the deed of reconstitution, the petitioner is made the Managing Partner of the firm, in the place of late K.D.Antony. Ext.P3 deed of partnership takes effect from 28.4.2017. Based on Ext.P3 deed of partnership, the petitioner submitted Ext.P4 application before the 2nd respondent seeking permission for the reconstitution of the partnership by inducting the son and legal heir of the deceased Managing Partner as a partner and the petitioner as the managing partner. Permission was also sought for changing the name of the licensee in Ext.P2(c) FL 11 licence. The petitioner has also moved Ext.P5 application dated 18.11.2017 for shifting the place of business of the partnership to building No.XVII/527 in Kuttippuram Grama Panchayat and he has also obtained Ext.P6 D&O licence from Kuttippuram Grama Panchayat for the year 2017-18 for running the restaurant in the building mentioned therein. 7. On account of the delay in considering Exts.P4 and P5 applications, the petitioner had approached this Court in W.P. (C)No.2993 of 2018 seeking various reliefs. During the pendency of that writ petition, the 2nd respondent conducted a personal hearing and passed Ext.P7 order dated 21.2.2018 sanctioning reconstitution of the firm by inducting the legal heir and son of the deceased Managing Partner as a partner and also change of name of the licensee, on payment of a total fee of Rs.40 lakhs. The 2nd respondent vide Ext.P8 order dated 21.2.2018 has also sanctioned the shifting of the licensed premises. 8. Rule 19 of the Foreign Liquor Rules, 1953 reads thus: “19. (i) Under no circumstances shall any licence obtained under this notification be sold, transferred or sub rented without the previous sanction of the Excise Commissioner. The 2nd respondent vide Ext.P8 order dated 21.2.2018 has also sanctioned the shifting of the licensed premises. 8. Rule 19 of the Foreign Liquor Rules, 1953 reads thus: “19. (i) Under no circumstances shall any licence obtained under this notification be sold, transferred or sub rented without the previous sanction of the Excise Commissioner. (ii) Reconstitution of partnership by addition or deletion of members or reconstitution of Directors in a Company resulting in change of ownership which owns/manages or operates any licence issued under this rule shall be deemed to be transfer of licence. (iii) Reconstitution of partnership/Directors of a Company may be allowed on payment of Rs.1,00,000 (Rupees one lakh only) (iv) Change of name of licensee may be allowed on payment of Rs.2 lakhs (Rupees Two lakhs only). Provided that such change shall be allowed only if the incumbent in whose name the licence is to be granted is eligible otherwise for obtaining a licence under these Rules. Provided further that the constitution/reconstitution of a partnership or Director Board of a Company of a hotel which does not have two star classification will be allowed on payment of a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two laksh) for each partner/director opted out of the partnership or Director Board of the company and on payment of Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees twenty lakhs) for each partner/director inducted into the partnership or Director Board of the Company, as the case may be. Provided also that the change of name of licensee of a hotel which do not have two star or above classification shall be allowed on payment of Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty lakhs only). (v) Notwithstanding anything contained in this rule, in the case of death of licensee of a proprietorship concern, or partner or a director of a partnership firm or a director of a company that hold an FL-3 licence, the change of name of licensee, the reconstitution of partnership or Board of Directors, as the case may be, will be allowed on payment of Rs.2 lakhs (Rupees two lakhs only) even if the hotel is not having star classification.” 9. Clause (i) of Rule 19 provides that under no circumstances, any licence obtained under the Foreign Liquor Rules shall be sold, transferred or sub rented without the previous sanction of the Excise Commissioner. Clause (i) of Rule 19 provides that under no circumstances, any licence obtained under the Foreign Liquor Rules shall be sold, transferred or sub rented without the previous sanction of the Excise Commissioner. Clause (ii) of Rule 19 makes it clear that reconstitution of partnership by addition or deletion of members or reconstitution of Directors in a Company resulting in change of ownership of partnership or Company which owns/manages or operates any licence issued under the Rules shall be deemed to be transfer of licence. As per clause (iii) of Rule 19, reconstitution of partnership/Directors of a Company may be allowed on payment of Rs.1 lakh and as per clause (iv), change of name of licensee may be allowed on payment of Rs.2 lakhs. 10. Going by the first proviso to Rule 19, such change shall be allowed only if the incumbent in whose name the licence is to be granted is eligible otherwise for obtaining a licence under the Rules. As per the second proviso, the constitution/ reconstitution of a partnership or Director Board of a Company of a hotel which does not have two star classification will be allowed on payment of a sum of Rs.2 lakhs for each partner/Director opted out of the partnership or Director Board of the company and on payment of Rs.20 lakhs for each partner/Director inducted into the partnership or Director Board of the Company, as the case may be. Going by the third proviso, the change of name of licensee of a hotel which do not have two star or above classification shall be allowed on payment of Rs.20 lakhs. 11. Clause (v) of Rule 19, which starts with a non obstante clause provides that notwithstanding anything contained in Rule 19, in the case of death of licensee of a proprietorship concern, or partner or a Director of a partnership firm or a Director of a Company, that hold an FL 3 licence, the change of name of licensee, the reconstitution of partnership or Board of Directors, as the case may be, will be allowed on payment of Rs.2 lakhs, even if the hotel is not having star classification. 12. 12. Clause (v) of Rule 19 was substituted vide Foreign Liquor (Amendment) Rules, 2010 and the explanatory note to G.O.(P)No.20/2010/TD dated 10.8.2010 reads thus: “As per sub-rule (v) of Rule 19 of the Foreign Liquor Rules, in case of death of a partner or Director of a partnership firm or of a Company that holds an FL 3 licence, reconstitution of partnership/directors of the company and change of name of licensees will be allowed on payment of Rs.2 lakhs (Rupees two lakhs only) even if the hotel is not having star classification. Now the Government have decided to extent the benefit to sole proprietorship concern also. For implementing the above decision, the Foreign Liquor Rules have to be amended.” 13. Relying on the provisions under Rule 19, the learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the demand for a sum of Rs.40 lakhs made in Ext.P7 order of the 2nd respondent cannot be sustained. Per contra, the learned Senior Government Pleader would contend that since there is reconstitution of the partnership on account of the death of the managing partner of the firm by induction of his son and legal heir as a partner and also change of name of licensee in the FL 11 licence, the amount of Rs.40 lakhs demanded in Ext.P7 is perfectly legal. 14. The learned counsel for the petitioner would place reliance on a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in State of Kerala v. Cochin Gymkhana Club 2016 (3) KLT 55 . In the said case, the Division Bench of this Court was dealing with an FL 4A club licence, which is issued to existing clubs satisfying the criteria enumerated in Para.1 to 10 of sub-rule (4A) of Rule 13 of the Foreign Liquor Rules. In the said decision, arguments were advanced relying on the law laid down by another Division Bench of this Court in State of Kerala and others v. Panamoottil Investments and others [ 2010 (1) KLT 557 ] In that case, the Division Bench was dealing with the case of a partnership that wanted to change the name of its managing partner. The Division Bench noticed that there is no change in the partners constituting the partnership firm, which is an FL 3 licensee. The partnership was being represented by one Mathew Philip who was the managing partner. The Division Bench noticed that there is no change in the partners constituting the partnership firm, which is an FL 3 licensee. The partnership was being represented by one Mathew Philip who was the managing partner. As per the request made for change of name, one Sunoj Kurian is also nominated as a Joint Managing Partner to represent the licensee. That means, there will be two joint partners to represent the licensee. Since the aforesaid Sunoj Kurian was also an existing partner of the partnership firm and since the permission sought for was only to show the name of those persons in the licence, the Division Bench held that, in that case neither the partnership is reconstituted nor the name of the licensee is changed and as such, sub-rule (iii) of Rule 19 and the main part of sub-rule (iv) of Rule 19 have no application to the facts of the case. After noticing the law laid down in Panamoottil Investments' case (supra), the Division Bench in Cochin Gymkhana Club's case held that in the case of a partnership, the firm has no separate identity of its own other than the combined identity of its partners. However, in the case of an organisation like a Club it has necessarily to be a Society, which is governed by the provision of its bye-laws, which provide for an organisational set up, as also the election of its functionaries and for their terms of office. The changes that are necessitated upon expiry of the term of office of its respective functionaries cannot be said to amount to a change in the identity of the licensee, attracting the fee that is stipulated by clause (iv) of Rule 19 of the Rules. 15. In Panamoottil Investment’s case (supra), another question that came up for consideration before the Division Bench of this Court was as to whether Rule 19(ii) and (iv) of the Foreign Liquor Rules is constitutionally valid. 15. In Panamoottil Investment’s case (supra), another question that came up for consideration before the Division Bench of this Court was as to whether Rule 19(ii) and (iv) of the Foreign Liquor Rules is constitutionally valid. After referring to the rival contentions, the Division Bench held that the rule making authority only said that if certain changes in the partnership firm or the company takes place, they shall be treated as having the effect of transferring the licence and therefore, if the newly constituted partnership firm or company with reconstituted board was to continue the business, they should seek permission of the Commissioner and such a provision cannot be described as amending the provisions of the Partnership Act or the Companies Act. Paragraph 7 of the judgment reads thus: “7. Going by the above decisions, a subordinate legislation can be nullified, only if it is in conflict with the parent Act or with any other plenary statutory or constitutional provision. It can also be nullified, if it is found that its provisions are highly arbitrary and oppressive, which will persuade courts to say that the legislature cannot be intended to have conferred power to frame such arbitrary provisions and therefore, they are ultra vires and unauthorised. In this case, we find that no such ground has been raised. The main contention taken by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant is that sub-rule (ii) of Rule 19 of the Rules, has the effect of amending the Indian Partnership Act and the Companies Act. The said contention is plainly untenable. The rule making authority only said, if certain changes in the partnership firm or the company take place, they shall be treated as having the effect of transferring the licence and therefore, if the newly constituted partnership firm or Company with reconstituted Board wants to continue the business in foreign liquor, they should seek the permission of the Excise Commissioner. Such a provision cannot be described as amending the provisions of the Partnership Act or the Indian Companies Act. The learned Senior counsel pointed out that even the retirement of a partner is not permitted. But, going by Section 32(4) of the Partnership Act, the retirement of a partner will have the effect of reconstitution of the partnership. Such a provision cannot be described as amending the provisions of the Partnership Act or the Indian Companies Act. The learned Senior counsel pointed out that even the retirement of a partner is not permitted. But, going by Section 32(4) of the Partnership Act, the retirement of a partner will have the effect of reconstitution of the partnership. So, if the remaining partners, after the retirement of one of them, want to carry on the business, they have to comply with Sub-rule (i) of Rule 19 of the Rules. The intention of the Rule is to ensure that the licence does not fall into undesirable hands. If such a provision is not there, the right to vend liquor will reach the hands of abkari offenders, without the knowledge of the Excise Commissioner. We, therefore, find nothing illegal or irrational about such a stipulation introduced by a statutory rule. When such a constitution or reconstitution takes place in the partnership or the Board of Directors of a Company, permission under the said Rule will be granted if only the hotel is having Two star classification, issued by the Ministry of Tourism, Government of India. We find nothing arbitrary or irrational about the said stipulation. If the Government think that in a phased manner, more and more hotels should be compelled to get two-star classification, the same cannot be said to be arbitrary or irrational. It is a matter of policy, as rightly pointed out by the learned Advocate General. This Court cannot sit in appeal over the wisdom of such policy. If the policy, when translated into an Act or Rule, transgresses any of the legal or constitutional limits, then only this Court can interfere. This Court is not concerned with the propriety or otherwise of the policy of the Government in such matters. In other words, even if this Court feels that the policy of the Government is not a wise policy, it is not authorised to interfere with it, under our Constitutional scheme. In view of the above well settled principles, we think, the challenge raised against Rule 19(ii) and the second proviso to Rule 19(iv) of the Rules is unsustainable. We find no reason to interfere with the decision of the learned Single Judge on the above point. In view of the above well settled principles, we think, the challenge raised against Rule 19(ii) and the second proviso to Rule 19(iv) of the Rules is unsustainable. We find no reason to interfere with the decision of the learned Single Judge on the above point. In the decision cited by the learned Senior counsel for the appellant in K.S.C.T.U. v. State of Kerala (supra), the validity of Rule 4(2) of the Abkari Shops Disposal Rules 2002 was considered. It was held in the said decision that the said Rule does not fall within the rule making power of the Government, under the Abkari Act and it also runs counter to the object and policy of the said Act. For the same and other reasons, the said Rule, which deals with the condition to employ retrenched abkari workers in toddy shops, was held to be ultra vires and unauthorised by the parent Act. We think, the principle laid down in that decision cannot have any application to the facts of this case. In this case, an artificial meaning has been given to transfer of licence to partake within its fold, the change in the personnel of Partnership or Board of Directors of the Company, which are holders of FL-3 licence. As found by us earlier, to prevent undesirable persons coming into possession of an FL-3 licence, through partnership and companies, the present Rule has been enacted. The same will definitely fall within the purview of the power of the State Government to frame rules. Since we have already accepted the contentions raised by the State regarding the validity of the impugned Rules, it is not necessary to deal with the decisions relied on by the learned Advocate General.” 16. The learned counsel for the petitioner would place reliance on the judgment of a learned Judge of this Court in V.M.G.R.Hotels and Resorts (P) Ltd. v. State of Kerala and others (judgment dated 25.11.2016 in W.P.(C)No.18873 of 2016) and also the judgment of the Division Bench in W.A.No.897 of 2017 dated 6.6.2017 arising therefrom. In the said case, FL 11 licence was issued in the joint name of the then Managing Director of the Company K.Mohan Kumar and its Director Binoy Joseph. In the said case, FL 11 licence was issued in the joint name of the then Managing Director of the Company K.Mohan Kumar and its Director Binoy Joseph. The Managing Director died on 17.11.2015 and consequently, Binoy Joseph, the Director of the Company requested the competent authority to issue the licence in his name, on behalf of the Company. It was contended before this Court that since the Company is the licensee and since the Managing Director and the Director of the Company referred to above were only representatives of the Company to be shown in the license issued to the Company under the Rules, there was no justification for the Excise Commissioner in demanding a sum of Rs.2 lakhs as fee payable under Rule 19(v) of the Foreign Liquor Rules and a further sum of Rs.3 lakhs towards fine under Section 67(2) of the Abkari Act. It was also contended that there was no reconstitution of the Board of Directors of the Company consequent on the death of its Managing Director. The Division Bench after referring to the provisions under Rule 19 of the Rules noticed that the licensee is the Company and Mohan Kumar was only a representative of the Company. The respondents have no case that there was reconstitution of the Board of Directors of the Company on the death of Mohan Kumar. In such circumstances, the Division Bench held that there was no justification in directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.2 lakhs. Accordingly, the judgment of the learned Single Judge in W.P. (C)No.18873 of 2016 was affirmed by the Division Bench by its judgment dated 6.6.2017 in W.A.No.897 of 2017. After referring to clause (v) of Rule 19 of the Foreign Liquor Rules, the Division Bench observed that the applicability of that provision is confined to those holding FL 3 licence and since the licence possessed by the Company is an FL 11 licence the provisions under clause (v) of Rule 19 cannot be pressed into service. 17. The learned counsel for the petitioner would place reliance on another decision of a Division Bench of this Court in State of Kerala and others v. P.A. Radhakrishnan and others ( 2010 (2) KHC 231 ). 17. The learned counsel for the petitioner would place reliance on another decision of a Division Bench of this Court in State of Kerala and others v. P.A. Radhakrishnan and others ( 2010 (2) KHC 231 ). In that case, the question that came up for consideration before the Division Bench was as to whether clause (ii) of Rule 19 of the Foreign Liquor Rules will stand in the way of the partnership in continuing the business and getting the licence renewed in a case where on death of one of the partners the partnership continued with the remaining partners, as the legal heirs of the deceased partner were existing partners. The facts of the said case, as discernible from Para.4 of that judgment would show that on the death of the partner the rights and liberties have been re-distributed among the surviving partners in tune with the terms of the partnership deed. Therefore, in the context of clause (ii) of Rule 19, the Division Bench held that, the said provision is introduced to take care of deletion by conscious action of the partnership, by removing an existing living member and that the said clause is not intended to take care of deletion of partners resulting out of death. Paragraphs 4 and 6 of the said decision read thus: “4. The learned Single Judge, after hearing both sides, allowed prayers 1 and 2. The other reliefs were declined. The writ petitioners have not appealed against the judgment. But, the respondents in the Writ Petition appealed, feeling aggrieved by the directions issued by the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge dealt with the case of the respondents/petitioners along with the cases of a few other writ petitioners, at paragraph 13 of the judgment, which reads as follows :- “13. In these cases (W.P.C.Nos.28698, 28699 and 23870 of 2007) admittedly, the reconstitution of the partnership is only on the death of some of the partners and the rights and liabilities have been redistributed among the surviving partners, in tune with the terms of the Deed. In other words, the privilege under the licence is continued to be enjoyed by such persons who were already enjoying the same along with the deceased partners and there is no question of any 'addition or deletion' of partners involving any 'transfer' of the privilege. In other words, the privilege under the licence is continued to be enjoyed by such persons who were already enjoying the same along with the deceased partners and there is no question of any 'addition or deletion' of partners involving any 'transfer' of the privilege. Almost same is the position with regard to the case involved in W.P.(C)No.6626/2008 as well, where the reconstitution was sought for, pursuant to retirement of some partners. The rights and liberties to the surviving/remaining partners are clearly discernible from the relevant partnership deeds which reveal that the partnerships were 'at will' and that 'death' or 'retirement' of a partner would not dissolve the Firm and that the surviving/remaining partners could very well proceed with the trade/business. This being the position, absolutely no question of transfer of the licence as contemplated under Rule 19(ii) is involved in the above four cases and hence the petitioners therein are hereby declared as entitled to have their licence renewed in view of the admitted fact that their licence was valid and functional as on 31.3.2007 and very much entitled to the benefit of the 6th proviso' to Rule 13(3) of the Foreign Liquor Rules.” Based on the above finding, the learned Judge granted the following relief : “(i) The petitioners in W.P.(C) Nos.23870, 28698 and 28699 of 2007 and W.P.(C) No.6626 of 2008 are held as eligible to be considered for the benefit of the 'sixth proviso' to Rule 13(3) of the FLR and their applications for recognizing the reconstitution of the Firm on the death/retirement of the concerned partners are liable to be reconsidered in tune with the law as it existed prior to the amendment of the Rules brought into effect from 01.04.2007. Ext.P4 in W.P. (C) 6626 of 2008 issued to the contrary is set aside.” Challenging the above finding and the consequential direction, in so far as they relate to W.P.(C) No.23870/07, this Writ Appeal is preferred. xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx 6. We considered the rival submissions made at the Bar. Rule 19, which is relevant in this case, reads as follows : “19. (i) Under no circumstances shall any licence obtained under this notification be sold, transferred or sub rented without the previous sanction of the Excise Commissioner. xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx 6. We considered the rival submissions made at the Bar. Rule 19, which is relevant in this case, reads as follows : “19. (i) Under no circumstances shall any licence obtained under this notification be sold, transferred or sub rented without the previous sanction of the Excise Commissioner. (ii) Reconstitution of partnership by addition or deletion of members or reconstitution of Directors in a Company resulting in change of ownership which owns/manages or operates any licence issued under this rule shall be deemed to be transfer of licence. (iii) Reconstitution of partnership/Directors of a company may be allowed on payment of Rs.50,000 (rupees fifty thousand only). (iv) Change of name of licensee may be allowed on payment of Rs.2 Lakhs (Rupees two lakhs only) Provided that such change shall be allowed only if the incumbent in whose name the licence is to be granted is eligible otherwise for obtaining a licence under these rules. Provided further that, constitution/reconstitution of partnership deed/Director Board of a Company will be allowed only if the hotel is having two star classification certificate issued by Ministry of Tourism, Government of India.” (emphasis supplied) The point to be considered is whether clause (ii) of Rule 19 of the Rules quoted above, will stand in the way of the partnership, in continuing the business and getting the licence renewed. If an existing partner is deleted or a new partner is inducted, then definitely, previous sanction of the Excise Commissioner is necessary. The State has the exclusive privilege to deal with intoxicated liquor and can grant it in favour of others on paying the fees, rentals etc. Having regard to the very nature of the business, strict control of the State is required to be maintained. A licence to vend foreign liquor should not fall into the hands of undesirable persons. To ensure this, we think, clause (ii) of Rule 19 of the Rules is introduced. The partnership may remain the same, but, good people may be deleted and anti-social elements may be inducted, with the facade of the partnership still remaining as the same. To prevent this, the State has framed rules, requiring previous sanction of the Excise Commissioner. In this case, a person continued as the partner, till his death. Thereafter, he is no longer a member of the partnership. To prevent this, the State has framed rules, requiring previous sanction of the Excise Commissioner. In this case, a person continued as the partner, till his death. Thereafter, he is no longer a member of the partnership. Deletion did not take place, as a result of the actions of the remaining partners. By act of God, it has happened. We think, clause (ii) of Rule 19 is not intended to take care of such deletion of partners, resulting out of death. It is introduced to take care of deletion by the conscious action of the partnership, by removing an existing living member. We are in full agreement with the reasoning of the learned Judge that clause (ii) of Rule 19 will not apply to the facts of the case. Therefore, previous sanction of the Excise Commissioner was not necessary. In this case, we notice that there was no addition of legal heirs of the deceased person because four of his sons were existing partners.” 18. A reading of the judgment of the Division Bench in P.A.Radhakrishnan's case (supra), would make it explicitly clear that in that case the issue before this Court was only as to whether clause (ii) of Rule 19 will stand in the way of the partnership continuing the business with the surviving partner and getting the licence renewed and whether previous sanction of the Excise Commissioner was necessary when there was no addition of legal heirs of the deceased partner because the legal heirs of the deceased partner were existing partners. The levy of fee for reconstitution of the partnership by inducting the legal heir of the deceased partner or levy of fee for change of name of the licensee on account of the death of the deceased partner was not an issue before the Division Bench in that case. 19. In the instant case, on the death of K.D.Antony, who was the managing partner, the partnership was reconstituted by inducting his son as a partner, vide Ext.P3 deed of reconstitution. Since FL-11 licence was in the name of K.D.Antony, the reconstitution of the partnership with the petitioner as the managing partner necessitated change of name of licensee. 19. In the instant case, on the death of K.D.Antony, who was the managing partner, the partnership was reconstituted by inducting his son as a partner, vide Ext.P3 deed of reconstitution. Since FL-11 licence was in the name of K.D.Antony, the reconstitution of the partnership with the petitioner as the managing partner necessitated change of name of licensee. Going by the second proviso to Rule 19, since the hotel run by the petitioner does not have two star classification, induction of the legal heir of the deceased managing partner as a partner of the partnership is permissible only on payment of Rs.20 lakhs. Similarly, change of name of the licensee is permissible only on payment of a further sum of Rs.20 lakhs. 20. Viewed in the light of the law laid down in the decisions referred to supra and also the statutory provisions under Rule 19 of the Foreign Liquor Rules, the demand for payment of a total sum of Rs.40 lakhs made in Ext.P7 order is perfectly legal, which warrants no interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the result, the petitioner is not entitled for the reliefs sought for in this writ petition. The writ petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed.