JUDGMENT : Ravikumar, J. This intra court appeal is directed against the judgment dated 22.03.2018 in WP(C)No.6237/2018 whereby it was dismissed. The petitioner therein is the appellant. He filed the said writ petition seeking quashment of Ext.P7 order to the extent he was required thereunder to pay an amount of Rs.40,00,000/- viz., Rs.20,00,000/- each for the induction of one Joseph Antony into the partnership in place of his father Sri. K.D. Antony, who was its Managing Partner, upon his death and also for allowing change in the name of the licensee in Ext.P2(C) viz., in the name of the appellant who was nominated as the Managing Partner of the firm upon the death of the existing licensee viz., the aforesaid Sri. K.D. Antony who represented the partnership firm in his capacity as its Managing Partner. He also sought for issuance of writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to permit him to run the Beer and Wine parlour covered by Ext.P2(C) licence, without insisting payment of Rs.40,00,000/- as ordered under Ext.P7 and also to allow change of name of the licensee in Ext.P2(C) as sought for. 2. Sans elaboration the basic facts which ultimately culminated in the impugned judgment is as follows:- The appellant/the petitioner is the Managing Partner of the partnership firm in question, functioning in the name and style “Hotel Salkara” and he was so nominated pursuant to death of its Managing Partner and the licensee under Ext.P2(C). The partnership firm was originally constituted with late K.D. Antony as its Managing Partner as per Ext.P1 Deed of Partnership dated 14.10.2007 that obtained approval from the Excise Commissioner. On its constitution, the firm applied for and obtained FL 3 licence and it was issued in the name of the then Managing Partner Sri. K.D. Antony. On the strength of the licence, which was renewed periodically, the firm was conducting a hotel with FL 3 licence till 31.03.2014. It became non-operational after 31.03.2014 owing to the change in abkari policy of the Government. Thereafter, Rule 13(11B) was inserted in the Foreign Liquor Rules, 1953 (for brevity 'FL Rules') with effect from 30.12.2014 to enable for the grant of FL 11 licence to any hotel which was a grantee of FL 3 licence and such licence was in force as on 31.03.2014, on request by the licensee. Thereafter, Rule 13(11B) was inserted in the Foreign Liquor Rules, 1953 (for brevity 'FL Rules') with effect from 30.12.2014 to enable for the grant of FL 11 licence to any hotel which was a grantee of FL 3 licence and such licence was in force as on 31.03.2014, on request by the licensee. The Deputy Commissioner of Excise is the authority to issue such a licence in form FL 11. Certainly, it was grantable only subject to the conditions specifically mentioned in Rule 13(11B). Being the Managing Partner of the firm constituted as per Ext.P1 which was running the aforesaid hotel with a valid FL 3 licence as on 31.03.2014 the aforesaid late Sri. K.D. Antony applied for FL 11 licence and obtained Ext.P2 licence. The said licence was renewed for the period from 2017-2018 as is evident from Ext.P2(C). However, it had to be closed on 31.03.2017 pursuant to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Tamil Nadu v. K. Balu reported in 2017(1) KLT 132 (SC). While it remained closed, on 28.04.2017, the said K.D. Antony breathed his last. Thereupon, in terms of Rule 24A of the FL Rules and in the light of the aforesaid decision, application was made for permission to shift the hotel with FL 11 licence to another location. It is to be noted that prior to the submission of the said application, in place of the deceased partner Sri. K.D. Antony, his son and legal heir Sri. Joseph Antony was inducted as a partner into the partnership and on account of death of Sri. K.D. Antony, the appellant herein was nominated as its Managing Partner. It is in the said circumstances that Exts.P4 and P5 applications were submitted for the aforesaid purposes. Aggrieved by the inaction on the said applications, the appellant herein moved this Court by filing WP(C)No.2993/2018. During its pendency, in the matter of induction of Sri. Joseph Antony and change of name of the licensee, Ext.P7 order was passed and in the matter of change of location, Ext.P8 order was passed. As per Ext.P7 order, sanction was accorded to change the name of the licensee as P.G.Joshy, the appellant who is the present Managing Partner of the firm subject to remittance of Rs.20,00,000/- as per 2nd proviso to Rule 19(iv) of FL Rules and to reconstitute the partnership due to the death of Sri. As per Ext.P7 order, sanction was accorded to change the name of the licensee as P.G.Joshy, the appellant who is the present Managing Partner of the firm subject to remittance of Rs.20,00,000/- as per 2nd proviso to Rule 19(iv) of FL Rules and to reconstitute the partnership due to the death of Sri. K.D. Antony by inducting his son and legal heir viz., Joseph Antony as partner subject to remittance of Rs.20,00,000/- as per 1st proviso to Rule 19(iv) of FL Rules. In the said order itself it is stated that separate proceedings would be issued to relocate FL 11 licence to a new premises and as stated hereinbefore, it is in that regard that Ext.P8 order was passed subsequently. It is in the said circumstances that the writ petition from which this appeal arose was filed. 3. The learned Single Judge considered the rival contentions in the light of various provisions under the Abkari Act, the Foreign Liquor Rules and also in the light of various decisions such as State of Kerala v. Cochin Gymkhana Club [ 2016 (3) KLT 55 ], State of Kerala and others v. M/s. Panamoottil Investments and others [ 2010 (1) KLT 557 ], 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), the Division Bench judgment in W.A.No.897 of 2017 dated 6.6.2017 arising therefrom and also the decision in State of Kerala v. Radhakrishnan and others [ 2010 (2) KLT 185 ]. The learned Single Judge held that in view of the law laid down in the decisions referred (supra) and also the statutory provisions under Rule 19 of FL Rules, insistence for payment of Rs.20,00,000/- each, for the aforesaid purposes, made as per Ext.P7 is perfectly legal and no interference with the order impugned is called for, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed. It is aggrieved by the said judgment that the petitioner filed the captioned appeal. 4. We have heard the learned Senior Counsel Sri. C.C. Thomas for the appellant and the learned Senior Government Pleader Sri. K.P. Harish. 5. We have already narrated the facts involved in the case. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed. It is aggrieved by the said judgment that the petitioner filed the captioned appeal. 4. We have heard the learned Senior Counsel Sri. C.C. Thomas for the appellant and the learned Senior Government Pleader Sri. K.P. Harish. 5. We have already narrated the facts involved in the case. In the facts and circumstances expatiated supra, two questions germane for consideration viz., whether the induction of the legal heir of the deceased partner in terms of the approved deed of partnership would amount to induction of a new partner so as to bring the process as 'reconstitution of partnership by addition' and to attract the second proviso to Rule 19 (iv) of the FL Rules as held in Ext.P7 and whether the nomination of one of the existing partners as Managing Partner in place of the deceased Managing Partner to represent the firm in the matter of holding of FL licence would amount to transfer of licence to attract the third proviso to Rule 19(iv) of the FL Rules. At this juncture, it is to be noted that in Ext.P7, payment of Rs.20,00,000/- is ordered for change of name of the licensee under the 2nd proviso to Rule 19(iv) and payment of Rs.20,00,000/- is ordered for reconstitution of the partnership by inducting the son and legal heir of the deceased Managing Partner Sri. K.D. Antony under the 1st proviso to Rule 19(iv) of the FL Rules. In this context, it is only appropriate to refer to the penultimate paragraph in Ext.P7 order and it reads thus:- “In the above circumstances that reported and as recommended by the Joint Excise Commissioner, North Zome (sic. North Zone), Kozhikode and Deputy Excise Commissioner, Malappuram, sanction is hereby accorded to change the name of Licensee of the firm M/s. Hotel Salkara as Sri. P.G. Joshi, Managing partner, subject to the remittance of Rs.20,00,000/- (Twenty Lakhs only) as per 2nd proviso to rule 19(iv) of FL Rules and to reconstitute the partnership deed due to the death of Sri. K.D. Antony and to induct his son and legal heir Sri. Joseph Antony as partner, subject to the remittance of Rs.20,00,000/- (Twenty Lakhs only) as per 1st proviso to rule 19(iv) of FL Rules. K.D. Antony and to induct his son and legal heir Sri. Joseph Antony as partner, subject to the remittance of Rs.20,00,000/- (Twenty Lakhs only) as per 1st proviso to rule 19(iv) of FL Rules. Separate proceedings will be issued to relocate the FL 11 Licence to the new premises.” In order to answer the aforesaid questions, it is also proper and profitable to refer to the decisions referred (supra). 6. We will firstly consider the Division Bench decision of this Court in Panamoottil's case (supra). The Division Bench considered the intention and purport of Rule 19(ii) and 19(iv) of the FL Rules and upheld the deeming provision under Sub-rule (ii) and also the additional burden introduced under the second proviso to Rule 19, of the FL Rules upon finding that they are within the rule making powers of the State. The Division Bench also took note of the fact that Sub-rule (i) of Rule 19 mandates previous sanction of the Excise Commissioner before a licence obtained under the FL Rules is sold, transferred or sub-rented. The Division Bench considered the intention of the sub-rule (ii) of Rule 19 of the FL Rules and held that the mandate thereunder is to ensure that licence would not fall into undesirable hands. Furthermore, it was held: “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.” As a matter of fact, the learned senior counsel for the appellant relied on the said decision only to draw our attention to paragraph 12 of the said decision, which runs as follows:- 12. Going by the facts of the case, we find that the licence has been granted in favour of a partnership firm called Panamootil Investments, Kadavanthra, Kochi-20. It was being represented by Mr. Mathew Philip, Managing Partner. Now, the firm has requested that hereafter, it will be represented by Joint Managing Partners M/s.Mathew Philip and Sunoj Kurian. Permission for the same is sought from the Commissioner, so that hereafter, the names of these persons can be shown in the licence. We think, in this case, neither the partnership is reconstituted nor the name of the licesee is changed. So, sub-r. (iii) of R.19 and the main part of sub-r. (iv) under R.19 of the Rules have no application to the facts of this case. We think, in this case, neither the partnership is reconstituted nor the name of the licesee is changed. So, sub-r. (iii) of R.19 and the main part of sub-r. (iv) under R.19 of the Rules have no application to the facts of this case. Therefore, the direction to collect Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) and Rs.2,00,000/-(Rupees Two Lakhs only) respectively under sub-rules (iii) and (iv) of R. 19 of the Foreign Liquor Rules is illegal and unauthorised. It is so declared. The above said amounts, which have already been paid, shall be adjusted towards the amounts payable by the partnership firm in future. Thus, the appellant is entitled to succeed, not on the ground that his application was filed before the amendment to the Rules, but because of the fact that there is no reconstitution of the partnership firm.” (underline supplied) 7. In the light of paragraph 12 of the aforesaid decision, as extracted above, it is submitted by the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant that by applying the principles laid down therein, it could not be said in the factual matrix obtained in the case on hand that the partnership firm in question is reconstituted. 8. Per contra, the learned Senior Government Pleader submitted that the decision in Panamoottil's case (supra) is inapplicable to the facts of this case. It is submitted that it was a case where licence was issued in favour of a partnership firm, namely, Panamoottil Investments and that it was being represented by one Mathew Philip in his status as its Managing Partner. He would further submit that the firm Panamoottil Investments had virtually requested only for permission to make one of its existing partners by name Sri. Sunoj Kurian as joint licensee along with Sri. Mathew Philip, the existing Managing Partner to represent the firm as Managing Partners. Evidently, the permission sought for, on the aforesaid lines, was granted. It is taking into account the said circumstances obtained in that case that the Division Bench held that there was no reconstitution of the partnership or change in the name of the licensee. The endeavour of the learned Senior Government Pleader is to establish that the situation obtained in this case is totally different from the one obtained in Panamoottil's case (supra). The endeavour of the learned Senior Government Pleader is to establish that the situation obtained in this case is totally different from the one obtained in Panamoottil's case (supra). It is further submitted by the learned Government Pleader that in the case on hand, on the death of the Managing Partner Sri. K.D. Antony in whose name licence was issued, Sri. Joseph Antony who is his son and legal heir was inducted into the partnership and as such, there occurred a re-constitution of the partnership firm and it is only after such reconstitution that the partners had nominated the appellant as the Managing Partner to represent the firm and sought for issuance of licence in his name. Hence, for changing the name of the licensee, realisation of a fee of Rs.20,00,000/- is required. In short, the contention is that the direction for realising a fee of Rs.40,00,000/- for the aforesaid purposes viz., for changing the name of the licensee and for reconstitution of the partnership and for induction of Sri. Joseph Antony as a partner into the firm, did not invite an interference. 9. The learned senior counsel for the appellant also relied on a decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court in George Joseph v. Commissioner of Excise and others [2015 KHC 873]. Obviously, the said decision was subsequently affirmed by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.2272/2015 dated 9.10.2015. The learned Single Judge referred to Rules 13(11) and 19, of the FL Rules. Rule 13(11) of the FL Rules deals with granting of licence to an applicant to have a Beer & Wine Parlour. It empowers the Commissioner of Excise for issuing Beer & Wine Parlour licence in Form FL-11 under orders of the Government, to hotels, motels, resorts, catering establishments etc. The learned Single Judge, in the light of the said provision, observed that any of the entities specified in Rule 13 (11) such as hotels, motels, resorts etc. could be owned either by individuals or by any firm or legal entities such as companies. Furthermore, the learned Single Judge held thus:- “It needs no reiteration that a partnership firm is not a juristic person. could be owned either by individuals or by any firm or legal entities such as companies. Furthermore, the learned Single Judge held thus:- “It needs no reiteration that a partnership firm is not a juristic person. For the authorities to deal with, and to fix answerability on, an entity, it is always essential for the authorities to identify a human agent acting on behalf of the said impersonal entity.” It was further held:- “26..............It is too well established to be caviled about that a partnership firm is an association of person (sic.persons) and is only a compendious reference to all those persons put together. In other words, the firm is not a legal entity different and distinct from its partners. Of course, a firm can be a legal entity by legal fiction as is the case under the Negotiable Instruments Act or by a statutory mandate, as is the case under the Income Tax Act. 27. Each partner, thus, acts not only in his interest but also in the interest of all other partners as their agent. Thus, the authorities have, I believe, devised the method of convenience to grant licence in the name of a particular person, a human being, evidently while he is acting in the capacity of, say, a managing partner of a firm-the non-juristic entity.” (underline supplied) 10. The aforesaid decision is relied on by the learned senior counsel for the appellant only to canvass the position that when a licence is issued to a firm, the ownership vests with the partnership firm and the Managing Partner is only representing the firm concerned so as to enable the authorities to deal with and to fix answerability. In such circumstances, the addition or deletion not involving an actual change in ownership could not be deemed to be a 'transfer of licence' for the purpose of Rule 19(ii) of the FL Rules. It is also submitted that in the case on hand, though in the application, it is submitted that there occurred a reconstitution of partnership firm, what had actually transpired was nothing but substitution of the deceased partner by name Sri. K.D. Antony by his son and the legal heir Sri. Joseph Antony, that too, in the light of the provisions under Ext.P1 Deed of Partnership that was approved by the Excise Commissioner. K.D. Antony by his son and the legal heir Sri. Joseph Antony, that too, in the light of the provisions under Ext.P1 Deed of Partnership that was approved by the Excise Commissioner. The contention is that in respect of the legal heir of the deceased partner, he only inherits the right of the deceased partner concerned in the firm, upon his induction. In such circumstances also, the firm continues to be the owner and therefore, by induction, no change in ownership would take place so as to treat it as a reconstitution of the partnership firm, it is contended. 11. The learned Senior Government Pleader resisted such contentions and contended that irrespective of the fact that only an induction of a legal heir of a deceased partner was effected, it would not take it outside the purview of reconstitution as any deletion or addition of partner would amount to reconstitution of the firm. That apart, it is contended by the learned Senior Government Pleader that virtually, Rule 19(ii) of the FL Rules is totally inapplicable in such cases and according to him, in the case on hand, what is applicable and actually applied are the second and third provisos to Rule 19(iv) of the FL Rules. 12. It is to be noted that the second and third provisos to Rule 19(iv) of FL Rules are not now in the statute. They stood omitted as per G.O.(P) No.78/2018/TD dated 1.6.2018 with effect from 1.4.2018. Therefore, the fact is that the second and third provisos to Rule 19(iv) were in the statute at the relevant point of time when Ext.P7 and Ext.P8 were issued and in such circumstances, the question to be considered is whether levying of fee for the aforesaid purposes, at the aforesaid rates in the light of the second and third provisos to Rule 19(iv) is sustainable or not? The learned Senior Government Pleader would submit that a bare perusal of the aforesaid provisos to Rule 19(iv) would reveal that they are independent provisos; not at all dependent on the satisfaction of the conditions under Rule 19(ii) and in such circumstances when and where constitution/reconstitution of a partnership firm of a hotel, which does not have Two Star or above classification occurs by the addition of partner or Director, it could be allowed only on payment of Rs.20,00,000/- for inclusion of each partner into the partnership in the light of the second proviso to Rule 19(iv) of the FL Rules and change of name in the Foreign Liquor licence, irrespective of the reasons for such change, could be allowed only on payment of Rs.20,00,000/-. 13. The learned Senior counsel for the appellant relied on a Division Bench decision of this Court in Cochin Gymkhana's case as well, to drive home his contentions. The ratio of the said decision is that if in terms of the provisions under Rule 19(iv) and 13(4A) of the FL Rules, licence is issued to a club in form F.L.4A despite the change of its functionaries from time to time, the club concerned would continue to remain as the F.L.licensee. It is submitted that the said decision would squarely apply in the case of a partnership firm whose hotel does not have two star or above classification and the licence in the name of its Managing Partner. When the licence is virtually issued to a firm and its Managing Partner is shown as the licensee, the mere fact that his name is shown as the licensee would not and could not make him the proprietor or the owner of the properties belonging to the firm. In other words, even in such circumstances, the ownership of all the properties would remain with the partnership firm. Taking up such contentions in the light of the decision in Cochin Gymkhana's case, the learned senior counsel submitted that despite the induction of the legal heir of a deceased partner, there occurred no change in ownership and therefore, there is no change of transfer of licence so as to attract the provisos under Rule 19(ii) of the FL Rules. Taking up such contentions in the light of the decision in Cochin Gymkhana's case, the learned senior counsel submitted that despite the induction of the legal heir of a deceased partner, there occurred no change in ownership and therefore, there is no change of transfer of licence so as to attract the provisos under Rule 19(ii) of the FL Rules. It is submitted that the said aspect is relevant and vital for deciding the applicability of second and third provisos under Rule 19(iv) of the FL Rules and it was not at all taken into consideration by the learned Single Judge. We ween that the said contention requires a deeper analysis and appreciation. While considering the aforesaid contentions, the decision of this Court in Radhakrishnan's case (supra) would also assume relevance. The Division Bench held that on the death of a partner, the remaining partners including son or sons of the deceased could reconstitute the partnership and in such eventuality, sanction of Excise Commissioner is not necessary. That apart, the Division Bench held that clause (ii) of Rule 19 of FL Rules is not intended to take care of deletion of partners by death. Clause (ii) of Rule 19 of the FL Rules then stood thus:- “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 a transfer of licence.” In Radhakrishnan's case, the Division Bench held:- “The point to be considered is whether cl.(ii) of R.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, cl.(ii) of R.19 of the Rules is introduced. 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, cl.(ii) of R.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. Deletion did not take place, as a result of the actions of the remaining partners. By act of God, it has happened. We think, cl.(ii) of R.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 cl.(ii) of R.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.” In this context, it is to be noted that Radhakrishnan's case was rendered by the Division Bench on 10.3.2010 and therefore, it is obvious that the Division Bench held so, prior to the insertion of the latter limb of clause (ii) of Rule 19 of the FL Rules. The latter limb inserted thereafter would certainly apply in the case of addition of a partner into a partnership on the death of a partner. This position would be clear from a subsequent amendment by addition brought into Rule 19(ii) as per G.O.(P) 78/2018/TD dated 1.6.2018 published in KG(extra ord.) dated 1.6.2018 as SRO 351/2018 with effect from 1.4.2018. The latter limb inserted thereafter would certainly apply in the case of addition of a partner into a partnership on the death of a partner. This position would be clear from a subsequent amendment by addition brought into Rule 19(ii) as per G.O.(P) 78/2018/TD dated 1.6.2018 published in KG(extra ord.) dated 1.6.2018 as SRO 351/2018 with effect from 1.4.2018. The said amendment by way of insertion of second limb to it, brought into force from 1.4.2018 reads as follows:- “Addition of partner/director or the change of name of the licensee due to death of a partner/director/licensee shall also be deemed to be transfer of licence.” (underline supplied) The second limb thus inserted to clause (ii) of Rule 19 of the FL Rules would certainly act as an indicator to the position obtained prior to 1.4.2018. A bare reading of the said amendment brought into Rule 19(ii) would reveal that addition of partner/director or the change of name of the licensee due to the death of partner/director/licensee could be deemed to be a transfer of licence for the purpose of Rule 19(ii) only from 1.4.2018. In other words, it would reveal that before the amendment, the same was not the position. If the position was the same even prior to 1.4.2018, there was absolutely no necessity to bring in such an amendment. Indisputably, the insertion of the second limb to Rule 19(ii) cannot be said to be a clarificatory one. The very purpose of amendment would reveal that it was brought out to bring the case of addition of a partner/director or the change of name of the licensee due to the death of partner/director/licensee within the deeming provision of Rule 19(ii) of the FL Rules. When that be the circumstances, necessarily, legally it can only be held that prior to 1.4.2018, an addition of partner or director or change of name of the licensee due to the death of partner/director/licensee could not have been and would not have been deemed to be a transfer of licence for the purpose of Rule 19(ii). The question is whether the said position obtained from Rule 19(ii) in the light of amendment got any relevance or impact as relates the second and third provisos to Rule 19(iv) of the Rules. We will deal with that question a little later. 14. The question is whether the said position obtained from Rule 19(ii) in the light of amendment got any relevance or impact as relates the second and third provisos to Rule 19(iv) of the Rules. We will deal with that question a little later. 14. To buttress the contention that when F.L. licence is issued to a partnership firm having a hotel that does not have two star or above classification, the fact that it was granted in the name of the Managing Partner of the said firm, would not make the said Managing Partner the owner of the property or it would not convert the business into, sole propriety, the learned counsel relied on a Single Bench decision of this Court in Suresh Babu v. State of Kerala and others [2000 KHC 299 = 2000 (2) KLJ 672 ]. It was held therein that when a bar licence is granted in the name of Managing Partner of a partnership firm, it is for the majority of the partners to decide who should be the Managing Partner or in whose favour licence should be obtained and based on the request of the majority of the partners, it can be transferred to another partner and if any partner is aggrieved by the conduct of the other partners in that regard, it would be open to him to approach the civil court. It is to be noted that Suresh Babu's case was a case where a person, who was a Managing Partner of Modern Hotel, Kundara was running the said hotel with FL-3 licence. The fact that the business run by a partnership was not disputed. The petitioner therein got no case that the hotel business was run by him as a propriety concern and in other words, the admitted case was that it was run by the partnership firm. It is based on the said admitted facts that the learned Single Judge rendered the decision as aforesaid. It is to be noted that in the case on hand also, there is no dispute with respect to the fact that the hotel with F.L 11 licence was run by the partnership firm though the licence was issued in the name of its Managing Partner Sri. K.D. Antony and that Sri. It is to be noted that in the case on hand also, there is no dispute with respect to the fact that the hotel with F.L 11 licence was run by the partnership firm though the licence was issued in the name of its Managing Partner Sri. K.D. Antony and that Sri. Joseph Antony who is his son was inducted into the partnership and change of name of licensee was sought to be made in the name of the appellant, upon the death of the said Sri. K.D. Antony, based on the majority decision. 15. The learned Senior Government Pleader submitted that the decisions relied on by the learned senior counsel to bring home his contentions got no relevance at all in the facts and circumstances of the case. It is submitted that so long as the fact that pursuant to the death of a partner, another person was inducted into partnership firm, be it the legal heir of the deceased partner or not and thereafter, a fresh deed of partnership is executed, it could not be said that it is not a reconstitution of the partnership and further that the firm continues to be the same, for the purpose of application of provisos 2 and 3 of Rule 19(iv) of the FL Rules. The foundation for the contention is that for considering the applicability of provisos 2 and 3 of Rule 19(iv), the question whether there occurred a transfer of licence is immaterial. What is to be looked into, according to the learned Senior Government Pleader, is whether a new person was inducted as partner into the partnership firm and whether there is any request for change of name of licensee. 16. While considering the tenability of the contentions raised on behalf of the appellant as also on behalf of the respondents, certain other undisputed and indisputable aspects have to be taken note of. As stated earlier, the fact that Ext.P2 licence was issued to the firm, though in the name of its Managing Partner cannot be disputed. We say so, in the light of Ext.P2 and Ext.P2(c). As stated earlier, the fact that Ext.P2 licence was issued to the firm, though in the name of its Managing Partner cannot be disputed. We say so, in the light of Ext.P2 and Ext.P2(c). In Ext.P2, it is stated thus:- “Deputy Commissioner of Excise, Malappuram, under the provisions of the Abkari Act I of 1077, and of the rules made hereby licence you K.D. Antony S/o. Devassy, Managing Partner, Hotel Salkara, Kuttippuram (Kannamkunni (H), Kallettumkara, Thrissur District) to vend beer/wine at the premises of the hotel there the FL-3 licence granted was in force as on 31st March 2014, subject to the following conditions and stipulations to be observed by the licensee.” In Exts.P2(b) and P2(c), the FL-11 licence renewal certificate respectively for the years 2016-'17 and 2017-'18, the name of the licensee and name of the firm are shown as follows:- Name of Licensee K.D. ANTONY Name of the Firm HOTEL SALKARA As a matter of fact, the respondents did not have a case that it was not issued to the partnership firm. It is in fact, indisputable in view of the fact that Ext.P1 was approved by the Excise Commissioner and also in view of Exts.P7 and P8 orders. Thus, the fact is that upon issuance of FL-3 licence in the name of Managing Partner, to the partnership firm by name Hotel Salkara, was running the hotel with FL-3 licence till 31.3.2014. Evidently, the firm was admittedly granted licence to run the hotel with FL-11 licence only in the light of the provisions under 13(11B) of FL Rules as can be seen from Ext.P2. We have also carefully gone through the contentions raised by the respondents in the statement as also in the counter affidavit filed by them. It is to be noted that the fact that the licence was issued to the firm is not at all disputed. In other words, it is not a case of the respondents that it was issued to Sri. K.D Antony to run the hotel business as sole propriety concern. There is also no dispute regarding the circumstances that necessitated the partnership firm to seek for change of the name of the licensee in the licence and for the induction of Sri. Joseph Antony as partner into the partnership firm. When Sri. K.D Antony to run the hotel business as sole propriety concern. There is also no dispute regarding the circumstances that necessitated the partnership firm to seek for change of the name of the licensee in the licence and for the induction of Sri. Joseph Antony as partner into the partnership firm. When Sri. K.D Antony was its Managing Partner, by virtue of his nomination as Managing Partner of the firm, the licence was issued to the firm in his name. This fact is discernible from the afore-extracted portion from Ext.P2 to Ext.P2(c). It is by act of God that a situation to request for change of the name of the licensee as also induction of Sri. Joseph Antony had occurred. Majority of the partners of the firm decided and nominated the appellant as the Managing Partner to represent the firm. It is in such circumstances and based on such decision that the request was made to change the name in the licence. In other words, in place of deceased Managing Partner, they requested to show the name of the appellant who was nominated as the new Managing Partner of the firm as the licensee. With respect to the induction of Sri. Joseph Antony into the partnership firm, as noticed hereinbefore, the case of the appellant is that he was inducted and permission was sought therefor since it is permissible in terms of the provisions under Ext.P1 partnership deed which was approved by the Excise Commissioner. In that context, it is relevant to refer to clause 13 of Ext.P1. It reads thus:- DEATH In case of death, retirement, insolvency of a partner the partnership shall not be dissolved but carried on by the remaining partners after satisfying the legal heirs of the deceased partner in respect of their shares and/or one major legal heir be admitted as a partner in place of the deceased partner. If none of the legal heirs of the deceased partner is willing to be admitted the share of such legal heir shall be paid off according to law. The fact that Ext.P1 was approved by the Excise Commissioner is not disputed and it is also indisputable. So also, the fact that Ext.P1 contains clause 13 which permits admission of partner in place of deceased partner is also not disputed. 17. The fact that Ext.P1 was approved by the Excise Commissioner is not disputed and it is also indisputable. So also, the fact that Ext.P1 contains clause 13 which permits admission of partner in place of deceased partner is also not disputed. 17. In the aforesaid circumstances, according to us, the next question to be considered is whether such order for realisation of fees of Rs.20,00,000/- each for induction of Sri. Joseph Antony as a partner in place of the deceased partner Sri. K.D. Antony and change of name of the licensee upon the death of Sri. K.D. Antony could be sustained. For considering the said question, the question whether Rule 19(ii) got any relevance is also to be considered. 18. We have already extracted the amendment brought into Rule 19(ii) of FL Rules by inserting a second limb to it, with effect from 01.04.2018, making it mandatory to deem addition of partner/director or the change of name of the licensee due to death of a partner/director/licensee to be transfer of licence. 19. The said amendment by way of insertion of second limb to Rule 19(ii) indubitably go to show that it was brought in to make it a specific provision to deem addition of a partner or a director or the change of the name of the licensee due to the death of a partner/director/licensee to be transfer of licence. We have already found that prior to 01.06.2018, the date of amendment as also prior to 01.04.2018, the date on which the said amendment came into force the same was not the position. If the same was the position, there was no need to insert the aforesaid aspects by way of an amendment to Rule 19(ii) of the FL Rules. Proviso to Rule 19(iv) is also a matter to be looked into. It is true that it pertained to FL 3 licence and such a licence was available only up to 30.03.2014. It was also omitted as per G.O. dt. 01.06.2018. It is only proper and profitable to refer to Rule 19(iv) and its 1st, 2nd and 3rd provisos for a proper consideration of the contentions:- “19(iv). It is true that it pertained to FL 3 licence and such a licence was available only up to 30.03.2014. It was also omitted as per G.O. dt. 01.06.2018. It is only proper and profitable to refer to Rule 19(iv) and its 1st, 2nd and 3rd provisos for a proper consideration of the contentions:- “19(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 license is to be granted is eligible otherwise for obtaining a licence under these rules: Provided further that the constitution/re-constitution 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 Rs.2,00,000 (Rupees two lakhs) 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 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)” Rule 19(iv), as extracted above, would reveal that it deals with the condition for 'change of licensee' and the condition in payment of Rupees Two lakhs. The first and third provisos to Rule 19(iv) evidently speaks of change of name of licensee. The second proviso to it, deals with constitution/reconstitution of a partnership/Director Board of a company of a hotel which does not have two star classification. The expression 'such change' used in the first proviso definitely refer to 'change of name of licensee' under Rule 19(iv) and it contained the conditions therefor. At the same time, the 3rd proviso to it deals 'change of name of licensee' of a hotel which does not have a two star and above classification and the condition therefor. The fact is that the business in question was being run by a partnership and the change of name of licensee of its present Managing Partner of the firm is sought for solely due to the death of the previous Managing Partner whose name was shown as the licensee. The fact is that the business in question was being run by a partnership and the change of name of licensee of its present Managing Partner of the firm is sought for solely due to the death of the previous Managing Partner whose name was shown as the licensee. If such a situation also falls within the situation 'change of name of the licensee' involving a 'deemed transfer of licence', there was no necessity to bring in amendment inserting the second limb, as extracted hereinbefore, by making it mandatory under such situations to deem such change of name of licensee to be transfer of licence. The said amendment would also reveal that addition of a partner due to the death of a partner also was not treated to be one involving transfer of licence till the amendment brought in as per G.O.(P)No.78/2018/TD dated 01.06.2018. In such circumstances, it can only be taken that the situation of reconstitution of partnership referred to under the 2nd proviso and change of name of the licensee referred to under the 3rd proviso, in respect of hotels which does not have two star classification, were the normal circumstances not arising due to the death of a partner and they were circumstances/situations involving a requirement to transfer of licence. In otherwords, as held by the Division Bench in Panamoottil's case (supra) in regard to Rule 19(ii) of the Rules, it has to be held that such stringent conditions are incorporated under the 2nd and 3rd provisos to Rule 19(iv) of the FL Rules to ensure that licence would not fall into undesirable hands. The contention of the respondents that the 2nd and 3rd provisos are independent provisions cannot be accepted and the very action on the part of the respondents in issuing Ext.P7 order itself would belie such contentions. If Rule 19(i) is not applicable to the rest of the provisions including the provisos to Rule 19(iv), why should the respondents insist for sanction of the Excise Commissioner? In fact, in the case on hand, in respect of matters falling under the 2nd and 3rd provisos to Rule 19(iv) of the Rules for granting sanction of the Excise Commissioner, payment of Rs.20,00,000/- each was put as the condition, as can be seen from Ext.P7. In fact, in the case on hand, in respect of matters falling under the 2nd and 3rd provisos to Rule 19(iv) of the Rules for granting sanction of the Excise Commissioner, payment of Rs.20,00,000/- each was put as the condition, as can be seen from Ext.P7. As a matter of fact, the 2nd respondent treated change of name of the licensee viz., in the name of the appellant herein as an action involving transfer of licence is evident from Ext.P7 itself. The following recital in Ext.P7 would reveal the same:- “Also change of name of licensee of the hotel which does not have Two Star Classification shall be allowed on payment of Rs.20,00,000/- only. Here the hotel run by the firm is not having Two Star Classification and hence as per 2nd proviso to Rule 19(iv) the transfer of licence to the name of Sri. P.G. Joshi can be regularised on payment of Rs.20,00,000/- (Twenty Lakhs only).” It is in view of the said circumstances that Rule 19(ii), especially, the amendment brought by bringing in, the second limb to Rule 19(iv) assumes relevance. If prior to 01.04.2018 change of name of licensee should have been deemed to be 'transfer of licence' in such circumstances as obtained in this case there was no necessity for inserting the second limb by way of an amendment. In the case on hand, the firm was constrained to apply for change of name of licensee from the name of the deceased Managing Partner in the name of the newly nominated Managing Partner solely because of an Act of God and not because of any other circumstances. In such circumstances and in the light of the insertion of the second limb as per amendment brought to Rule 19(ii) as aforesaid the position prior to 01.04.2018 can only be taken that change of name of licensee due to the death of a partner could not have been deemed to be a 'transfer of licence'. In the case on hand, there is no dispute regarding the fact that change of name of licensee was sought for solely due to the death of Sri. K.D. Antony, who was the Managing Partner and in whose name the FL 11 licence was issued. This fact is taken note of virtually by the authorities as can be seen from Ext.P7. K.D. Antony, who was the Managing Partner and in whose name the FL 11 licence was issued. This fact is taken note of virtually by the authorities as can be seen from Ext.P7. As per Ext.P7, the appellant was required to pay Rs.20,00,000/- for 'change of name of licensee' based on the 3rd proviso to Rule 19 (iv) of the FL Rules (wrongly stated in Ext.P7 as one ordered based on the 2nd proviso) and not for issuance of a fresh FL 11 licence under Rule 13(11) of the FL Rules. We may hasten to add that proviso viz., the third proviso was omitted as per G.O.(P) 78/2018 TD dt.01.06.2018 as KG Ex.No.1454 dated 01.06.2018 as SRO 351/2018. The omitted proviso viz., 3rd proviso to Rule 19(iv), ran as follows:- “provided also that change of name of licensee of a hotel which do not have two star classification shall be allowed on payment of Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs Only)” In Suresh Babu's case (supra), this Court held that when there is no dispute regarding the fact that the business was being run by a partnership firm and the licence was issued in the name of any particular partner who happened to be the Managing Partner it could not be taken as a case where the hotel business was being run by that person as a sole proprietory concern. It is further held therein that it is for the majority of the partners to decide as to who should be the Managing Partner or in whose favour the licence of the firm should be issued. Taking into account all these aspects including the fact that the hotel in question was admittedly being run by a partnership firm and it was issued in the name of Sri. Taking into account all these aspects including the fact that the hotel in question was admittedly being run by a partnership firm and it was issued in the name of Sri. K.D. Antony as he was the then Managing Partner of the firm (as admitted as the correct position as is obvious from the document referred hereinbefore including Ext.P7) and that the change of name of licensee was sought for solely due to the death of the Managing Partner whose name is shown as the licensee and the consequential nomination of the appellant herein as the Managing Partner, we are of the view that requiring the appellant to pay an amount of Rs.20,00,000/- for allowing change of name of licensee in the name of the appellant who is the present Managing Partner of the firm is unsustainable. Now, we will consider the question whether requiring the appellant to pay Rs.20,00,000/-for allowing the induction of the son and legal heir of the deceased partner into the partnership can be sustained? In this context also, the amendment by way of introduction, brought into Rule 19 (ii) of the FL Rules assumes relevance. We have already extracted the said proviso. For considering this question it is also apt to look into the 1st limb of Rule 19 (ii). It reads thus:- “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 license issued under this rule shall be deemed to be transfer or licence.” Originally, in regard to partnership which owns/manages or operates any licence issued under the Act it was dealing only with addition or deletion of members resulting in change of ownership and going by the same, in such an eventuality, it should have been deemed 'to be transfer of licence'. Evidently, the situation envisaged thereunder is not an addition or deletion of members as partners occurring due to the death of a partner/partners. In the case of addition not owing to death of a partner but, due to any other reason or reasons, the person inducted would acquire a share in the partnership resulting in reduction of shares of the other existing partners. In the case of addition not owing to death of a partner but, due to any other reason or reasons, the person inducted would acquire a share in the partnership resulting in reduction of shares of the other existing partners. At the same time, if the addition is only that of a legal heir of a deceased partner, he would inherit only the share in the ownership of the deceased partner, upon his addition and therefore, in the strict sense, there would not occur any change in ownership. This is because the added partner is only stepping into the shoes of his predecessor. In such circumstances, it could not be said, in the strict sense that there occurred a reconstitution of partnership so as to deem it as a transfer of licence. True that, after the amendment, there is absolutely no need to look into the question whether the newly inducted partner is a legal heir of the deceased partner or whether he inherited only with share on the properties of the firm. In short, as regard such a mere addition, after the amendment, the process involved should be deemed to be a transfer of licence in view of the purpose of second limb of Rule 19 (ii) of FL Rules. In the case on hand, the appellant was required to pay an amount of Rs.20,00,000/- for the induction of Joseph Antony as a partner in place of deceased Managing Partner K.D. Antony, viz., his deceased father by virtue of the erstwhile provision under 2nd proviso to Rule 19 (ii) of the FL Rules. It ran as follows:- “provided further that the constitution/re-constitution 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 Rs.2,00,000/-(Rupees two lakhs) 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 included into the partnership or Director Board of the company, as the case may be.” In such circumstances, even while considering the correctness of the requirement to pay Rs.20,00,000/- under the 2nd proviso for permission for inducting the son and legal heir of a deceased partner, necessarily, the provisions under Rule 19 (ii) of the FL Rules has to be looked into. We have already held that prior to the insertion of the second limb to Rule 19(ii) of the FL Rules when the person added as a new partner is only a legal heir of a deceased partner, the person inducted is only inheriting the share of the deceased partner and therefore, there would not occur a reconstitution involving change of ownership to deem it as 'transfer of licence'. In such circumstances in view of the decisions referred (supra) and the reasons mentioned, requiring payment of Rs.20,00,000/- is unsustainable. In the said circumstances mentioned hereinbefore, Ext.P7 to the extent it requires the appellant to pay Rs.20,00,000/- for induction of Sri. Joseph Antony as a partner in the firm in place of his deceased father K.D. Antony and to pay Rs.20,00,000/- for showing the name of the appellant herein as the licensee in the licence virtually issued to the firm, being the newly nominated Managing Partner, are set aside. It is submitted by the learned senior counsel for the appellant that since an interim order was declined in this appeal, the appellant herein was constrained to effect payment of Rs.40,00,000/- as ordered under Ext.P7. Since we have already held the requirement to pay Rs.40,00,000/- under the aforesaid heads as unsustainable, the appellant is entitled to get refunded the amount thus paid. We may hasten to add that this judgment will not stand in the way of making deduction, if any, towards any amount legally payable by the appellant during the period. The direction in the judgment shall be carried out as expeditiously as possible and at any rate, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. This Writ Appeal is allowed as above.