JUDGMENT : 1. The issues that arise for consideration in these writ petitions are one and the same and hence I dispose of all these writ petitions by a common judgment. 2. The principal question that arises for consideration is what are the payments to be made by the Petitioners/Private Limited Companies holding FL 11 license towards fine under Section 67(2) of the Abkari Act, 1077 (‘the Act’ in short) and fees under Rule 19 of the Foreign Liquor Rules, 1953 (‘FL Rules’ in Short) for regularization of the reconstitution of their Board of Directors which was done without obtaining prior permission of the Commissioner. 3. The petitioner in W.P(C) Nos. 8291/2019, 12475/19 & 29520/2019 is KSR Alankar Hotels and Resorts Pvt. Ltd. The petitioner in W.P(C) No.4768/2019 is Alankar Elite Inns and Hotels Pvt.Ltd. 4. KSR Alankar Hotels and Resorts Pvt. Ltd. reconstituted its Board of Directors on 31.8.2017 whereby wife of the Managing Director Mrs. Shereena Roshy is inducted to the Board and brother of the Managing Director Mr. K.R.Suraj resigned from the Board without obtaining permission from the Commissioner. Since the said company was conducting three hotels having FL 11 License – one at Vytila one at Angamaly and one at Vadanappally, three separate orders were passed regularizing the unauthorized reconstitution subject to payment of fine as per S.67(2) of the Act and fee as per Second Proviso to Rule 19(iv) of the FL Rules. 5. Since these writ petitions have been pending here since the year 2019 with interim orders and since legal issues with respect to the interpretation and applicability Statutory provisions are involved, I consider and dispose these writ petitions on merits. 6. The impugned Orders in W.P.(C) Nos. 8291/2019, 12475/19 & 29520/2019 are Ext.P5 dated 13.03.2009, Ext.P5 dated 13.03.2009 and Ext.P9 dated 23.10.2019 respectively. 7. In the impugned orders in W.P.(C) No. 8291/2019 and W.P.(C) No.12475/2019 the unauthorized reconstitution was regularized imposing a fine of Rs.3,00,000/-as per S.67(2)of the Act and demanding realization of fee of Rs.20,00,000/-for the induction of Mrs.Shereena Roshy as Director and a fee of Rs,2,00,000/-for the retirement of Mr.K.R.Suraj from the Board as per Second Proviso to Rule 19(iv) of the FL Rules. 8. 8. In the impugned Order in W.P.(C) No.29520/2019 the unauthorized reconstitution was regularized imposing a fine of Rs.3,00,000/-each on the joint licensee as per S.67(2) of the Act and demanding realization of fee of Rs.20,00,000/-for the induction of Mrs.Shereena Roshy as Director and a fee of Rs,2,00,000/-for the retirement of Mr.K.R.Suraj from the Board as per Second Proviso to Rule 19(iv) of the FL Rules. It is also stated that sanction is accorded to change the license from the joint names of Mr.K.R.Roshy and Mr.K.R.Suraj to the name of Mr.K.R.Roshy as per Rule 19(iv) by realizing a fee of Rs.2,00,000/-. 9. W.P.(C) No. 8291/2019 relates to the hotel at Vyttila. W.P.(C) No.12475/2019 relates to the hotel at Vadanappally and WP(C) No. 29520/2019 relates to the hotel at Angamaly. 10. KSR Alankar Elite Inns and Hotels Pvt. Ltd reconstituted its Board of Directors on 31.8.2017 whereby wife of the Managing Director Mrs. Thulasi Suraj is inducted without obtaining permission from the Commissioner. The said company was conducting two hotels having FL11 License – one at Chelakkara and one at Aluva. In Ext.P4 dated 14.11.2018 with respect to Aluva Hotel impugned in W.P.(C) No.4768/2019 the unauthorized reconstitution was regularized imposing a fine of Rs.3,00,000/-as per S.67(2) of the Act and demanding realization of fee of Rs.20,00,000/-for the induction of Mrs.Thulasi Sooraj as Director as per Second Proviso to Rule 19(iv) of the FL Rules. 11. The Petitioners challenge the impugned orders so far as it orders realization of fee as per Second Proviso to Rule 19(iv) of the FL Rules. In W.P.(C) No.29520/2019 additional challenge is made with respect to imposing fine as per S.67(2) on both the joint licensees and demanding realization of fee of Rs.2,00,000/-as per Rule 19(iv) for sanctioning change of license. In W.P(C) No.12475/2019 a contention is raised that no fine is payable for the Hotel at Vadanappally for want of license as on the date of reconstitution. 12. According to petitioners, they are liable to pay only a fine of Rs.3,00,000/-as per S.67(2) and fee of Rs.1,00,000/-as per Rule 19(iii) for regularization of unauthorized reconstitution of Board of Directors. 13. The respondents have filed Counter Affidavits opposing the prayers in these writ petitions. 14. 12. According to petitioners, they are liable to pay only a fine of Rs.3,00,000/-as per S.67(2) and fee of Rs.1,00,000/-as per Rule 19(iii) for regularization of unauthorized reconstitution of Board of Directors. 13. The respondents have filed Counter Affidavits opposing the prayers in these writ petitions. 14. Though the petitioners in these writ petitions amended these writ petitions incorporating the challenge against Second Proviso to Rule 19(iv) of the Foreign Liquor Rules on the ground that it is arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of the constitution, the said prayer was not pressed during the hearing. 15. Though the parties have made extensive pleadings in these cases since the legal questions involved in these cases are to be decided on the basis of admitted facts, I am not going into those pleadings in details. 16. The issues in the Writ Petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are to be adjudicated either on the basis of admitted facts or on the basis of facts proved from admitted documents, in case of disputed questions of facts. 17. These writ petitions are to be decided on the basis of certain admitted facts. Licensees are the petitioners/Private Limited companies though the Licenses are obtained in the name of its Managing Directors. In all these cases the petitioners were having FL3 license till 31/03/2014 and the same was not renewed thereafter on account of change of policy of the Government that FL 3 Licenses are allowed only to Five Star Hotels. Later the petitioners got FL11 License under Rule 13(11B) of the FL Rules on account of the fact that their FL3 license was in force as on 31.03.2014. The petitioners do not have any quarrel with respect to imposition of Rs.3 lakhs for regularizing the unauthorized reconstitution of Board of Directors. The date of reconstitution of Board of Directors of both the petitioners is 31.08.2017. The Second Proviso to Rule 19(iv) was there in the statute book as on the date of reconstitution. The Second Proviso to Rule 19(iv) was omitted with effect from 01.04.2018 and hence the same was not in the Statute Book when the Applications for regularization are submitted and when the impugned orders were passed regularizing unauthorized reconstitution. 18. I heard Learned Senior Counsel Sri. C.C.Thomas instructed by Adv. Sri.M.G.Karthikeyan for the petitioners and the Learned Senior Government Pleader Sri.Bimal K Nath for the respondents in these writ petitions. 18. I heard Learned Senior Counsel Sri. C.C.Thomas instructed by Adv. Sri.M.G.Karthikeyan for the petitioners and the Learned Senior Government Pleader Sri.Bimal K Nath for the respondents in these writ petitions. 19. Since the legal provisions involved in this adjudication are S.67 of the Act and Rule 19 the FL Rules as on 31.08.2017, the date of reconstitution of Board of Directors of the petitioners, S.67 and Rule 19 as on 31.08.2017 are extracted hereunder. Section 67. Power to impose fine- (1) The Commissioner shall be competent to impose such fine as may be prescribed in the rules, on any person holding a licence or permit issued under this Act, for contravention of any rule made under this Act: Provided that no order imposing any fine under this section shall be made without giving the person an opportunity of being heard. (2) The Commissioner may impose a fine of Rs.3,00,000 (Rupees three lakhs) each on any person or persons holding a licence or permit under the Act for the violation by way of reconstitution, alteration or modification without the permission of the Commissioner of any deed on the strength of which any licence is granted (3) Where a partnership firm or a company having a hotel (restaurant) holding a licence under this Act has, without the previous permission of the Commissioner, re-constituted, altered or modified any deed constituting such partnership or Board of Directors of the company, on the strength of which such licence is granted, the Commissioner may, on payment of the fine imposed under sub-section (2) and on an application from such licensee and subject to the other provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder, regularise such re-constitution, alteration or modification after accepting such fee as may be prescribed by rules. Rule 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). (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/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). (v) Notwithstanding anything contained in this rule, in the case of death of a 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 of a Company, 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. (Note.--'Hotel' includes classified restaurants and such other hotels or restaurants having classifications or certificates issued by concerned Government departments, on the strength of which, FL 3 licences have been obtained.) 20. In the light of the pleadings and arguments of the parties the following issues are to be decided on the basis of the above admitted facts. 1. Which is the relevant law to be applied for payment of fee for regularization of unauthorized reconstitution of Board of Directors, whether it be the law as on the date of reconstitution or whether the law as on the date of passing the impugned orders allowing regularization is to be applied? 2. Is the Second Proviso to Rule 19(iv) of the FL Rules applicable only to Hotels having FL 3 License in view of the Note defining ‘Hotel’ in Rule 19 which includes only hotels having FL3 License? 3. 2. Is the Second Proviso to Rule 19(iv) of the FL Rules applicable only to Hotels having FL 3 License in view of the Note defining ‘Hotel’ in Rule 19 which includes only hotels having FL3 License? 3. Is the Fine as per S.67(2) to be imposed on each of the Licenses of the Licensee or on the Licensee alone irrespective of the number of Licenses, for violation by way of unauthorized reconstitution? 4. Is the petitioner in W.P (C) No.29520/2019 liable to pay Rs.2,00,000/-provided in Rule 19(iv) of the FL Rules for change of name? 5. Whether the petitioner in W.P(C) No.12475/2019 is liable to pay fine for its Hotel at Vadanappally, since it did not have license as on the date of reconstitution? 6. Is it legally permissible to impose fine on each of the Licensees as did in Ext.P9 which is impugned in WP(C) No.28520/2019? 21. Issue No.1: The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, on the strength of the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Kerala and another v. B.Six Holiday Resorts (P) Limited & Etc. 2010 (5) SCC 186 and State of Kerala v. M/s Palakkad Heritage Hotels 2017(13) SCC 672 submitted that the Second Proviso to Rule 19(iv) of the FL Rules was not there in the Statute book as on the date of passing the impugned orders and hence the regularization reconstitution has to be done without reference to the same. He submitted that, since Rs.2,00,000/-and Rs.20,00,000/-mentioned in the Second Proviso are in the nature of fee and hence the law as on the date of consideration of the matter is to be taken into account. On this ground the charging of Rs.2,00,000/-and Rs.20,00,000/-as per the Second Proviso to Rule 19(iv) in the impugned orders are clearly unsustainable, according to him. He also referred to G.O(Rt) No.975/2015/TD dt 31.12.2015 which is produced as an Additional Exhibit in all these cases. By referring to Paragraph 5 of the said G.O he argued that the Government itself has admitted that in the case of fee the law as on the date of consideration of application is relevant. 22. In M/s Palakkad Heritage Hotels (supra) the question involved was whether the law applicable on the date of recommendation made by the subordinate authority or whether the law applicable as on the final decision taken by the competent authority is to be applied. 22. In M/s Palakkad Heritage Hotels (supra) the question involved was whether the law applicable on the date of recommendation made by the subordinate authority or whether the law applicable as on the final decision taken by the competent authority is to be applied. In that case the Application was for a grant of FL11 license. The Excise Commissioner made recommendation on 28.03.2012. The FL Rules were amended with effect from 18.04.2012 which prescribes the minimum distance of 200 meters from objectionable institutions. The learned Single Judge of this Court, relying on the Division Bench of this Court in Kallada Hotels and Resorts v. State of Kerala 2012 (2) KLT 167 wherein it was held that the law to be applied for consideration of Application for grant of license must be the law as on the date on which the Excise Commissioner made recommendation for grant of license, held that when the Excise Commissioner recommends the Application for grant of license on the basis of a Rule in force on that date, subsequent amendment should not be relied on to assail the same. The decision of the learned Single Judge was affirmed in writ appeal. Allowing the Appeal filed by the State in part remanding the matter, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the date on which formal and final decision is taken by the competent authority alone would be the relevant date and recommendation made by the subordinate authority even if significant for taking a formal decision by the competent authority will be of no avail. It was also held that the Application submitted by the respondent for grant of license unquestionably must be treated as pending and consideration on the date of amendment of the Foreign Liquor Rules. 23. In B.Six Holiday Resorts P. Ltd (supra) the question was with respect to the law applicable for an application for FL3 license. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the consideration of application should be with respect to the law applicable on the date when the authority considers the application for grant of license and not with respect to the date of application. It was further held that the direction of this Court that the Application for license should be considered with reference to the Rules as they existed on the date of application cannot be sustained. 24. It was further held that the direction of this Court that the Application for license should be considered with reference to the Rules as they existed on the date of application cannot be sustained. 24. The principle laid down in the aforesaid two Supreme Court decisions cannot be applied generally in all cases. They are slightly distinguishable since the question involved in the said case was not with respect to the payment of fee. The parameters for granting Foreign Liquor license changes from time to time. If the parameters as on the date of application is considered, sometimes it may be against the policy existing at the time of grant of license. Since the license to be granted is to run prospectively it has to be in conformity with the policy and law existing as on the date of granting the license. 25. In the Government Order G.O(Rt)No.975/2015 while considering a Review in an individual case, the Government took a stand that the fine of Rs.25,000/-under S.67(2) which was existing as on the date of reconstitution of the Board of Directors on 24.10.2012 is to be taken and not the fine of Rs.3,00,000/-increased with effect from 26.04.2013 on the ground that it is fine and not fee. The Government set aside the imposition of fine of Rs.3,00,000/-and ordered regularize the reconstitution by imposing a fine of Rs.25,000/-with reference to the Rule existing as on the date of reconstitution. The Learned Senior Counsel argued that it indicates that in case of fee, the fee payable as per the law as on the date of consideration of the application is relevant. I am of the view that whatever be stand taken by the Government in a Government Order in an individual case, the same is not binding on this Court and this Court is to decide the matter independently. 26. Nothing is stated with respect to the nature of payment of Rs.2,00,000/-or Rs.20,00,000/-which is provided in the Second Proviso to Rule 19(iv) of the FL Rules. S.67 of the Act deals with fine. S.67(3) provides that the unauthorized reconstitution may be regularized on payment of fine imposed under S.67(2) and after accepting such fee as may be prescribed by Rules. The fee as stated in S.67(3) is provided in Rule 19 of the FL Rules. S.67 of the Act deals with fine. S.67(3) provides that the unauthorized reconstitution may be regularized on payment of fine imposed under S.67(2) and after accepting such fee as may be prescribed by Rules. The fee as stated in S.67(3) is provided in Rule 19 of the FL Rules. So the payments of Rs.2,00,000/-or Rs.20,00,000/-provided the Second Proviso to Rule 19(4) can only be a fee and not a fine. If the nature of payment is only a fee, the fee as per the law existing on the date of consideration is applicable. Even if it is assumed that the date of application is to be made applicable, the applications in these cases are after 01.04.2018,with effect from which date the Second Proviso to Rule 19(iv) is deleted. The contention of the learned Senior Government Pleader that the fee as on the date of reconstitution is to be taken into account is not sustainable since the question of payment of fee arises only on submission of the application for regularization. Hence the demand for payment of Rs.2,00,000/-and Rs.20,00,000/-as per the Second Proviso to Rule 19(4) in the impugned orders is illegal and unsustainable since the Second Proviso to Rule 19(4) was not there in existence at the time of passing the impugned orders. 27. Issue No.2: the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Second Proviso to Rule 19(iv) of the Foreign Liquor Rules is applicable only to Hotels having FL 3 License in view of the Note defining ‘Hotel’ at the end of Rule19. According to the learned Senior Counsel the word hotel defined in the said Note includes only hotels having FL3 licenses. He submitted that since the Note is applicable to the entire Rule 19, the hotel mentioned in the Second Proviso can only be hotel having FL3 license and as such the fee prescribed in the Second Proviso is not applicable to the regularization of unauthorized reconstitution of hotels having FL11 license. 28. On the other hand the learned Senior Government Pleader argues that the said Note comes below sub-rule (v) of Rule 19 and is intended only for the purpose of defining the ‘hotel’ mentioned in sub-rule (v) of Rule 19 and hence the same is not applicable to the Second Proviso Rule 19(iv). 28. On the other hand the learned Senior Government Pleader argues that the said Note comes below sub-rule (v) of Rule 19 and is intended only for the purpose of defining the ‘hotel’ mentioned in sub-rule (v) of Rule 19 and hence the same is not applicable to the Second Proviso Rule 19(iv). He submitted that the fee prescribed in the Second proviso is applicable to the reconstitution with respect to all the licenses including FL 11 and not limited to FL3 alone. 29. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the Government Order G.O(P) No.72/2012 /TD dt 18.04.2012 which is produced as an Additional Exhibit in these writ petitions by which The Foreign Liquor (6th amendment) Rules 2012 was introduced. He invited my attention to Rule 4 by which a Proviso same as the Second Proviso in Rule 19(iv) is included to condition No.13 in FL3 License by way of substitution. He argued that such a Proviso was not included in FL11 License on the correct understanding of law that the Second Proviso in Rule 19(iv) is not applicable to FL11 License in view of the Note in Rule 19. 30. On the other hand, the contention of the learned Senior Government Pleader is that the Second Proviso in Rule 19(iv) is not included in FL11 License on account the presence of Condition No.18 therein. According to him on account of Condition No.18, the Second Proviso in Rule 19(iv) is applicable to FL 11 License and hence it is not repeated in the conditions. 31. The Condition No.18 in FL11 is that the licensee shall be bound by all the relevant Rules which have been made under the Abkari Act as subsequently amended and continue in force and which may hereafter be passed under the Abkari Act or under any law related to Abkari revenue which may hereafter be passed. He pointed out that such a condition is there only in FL11 and not in FL3 and only on account of absence of such a condition in FL3 a Proviso similar to the Second Proviso in Rule 19(iv) was included in condition No.13 to for FL3. 32. He pointed out that such a condition is there only in FL11 and not in FL3 and only on account of absence of such a condition in FL3 a Proviso similar to the Second Proviso in Rule 19(iv) was included in condition No.13 to for FL3. 32. I am unable to accept the argument of the learned Senior Government Pleader for the reason that even without Condition No.18 in FL11, the Licensee is bound by all the relevant Rules which have been made under the Abkari Act as subsequently amended and continue in force and which may be later passed under the Abkari Act or under any law related to Abkari revenue which may later be passed. Condition No.18 in FL 11 License is not meant to cover the area which the Second Proviso in Rule 19(iv) is occupied. 33. There are other indications also to hold that the said Note is not confined to Rule 19(v). The word ‘hotel’ occurs in the Second and Third Provisos to Sub Rule (iv) and in the Sub Rule (v) of Rule 19. The Second Proviso was inserted for the first time as per G.O(P) No.44/2007/TD dt 13.03.2007 w.e.f 01.04.2007. Sub Rule (v) was inserted by SRO No.214/2009 dt 4.3.2009 w.e.f. 01.04.2009. The Note was inserted by GO (P) No.227/2009/TD dt 15.12.2009 w.e.f 1.4.2007. Sub Rule (v) is not there w.e.f 1.4.2007. If the Note is intended for Sub Rule (v) alone as contended by the Learned Government Pleader, there was no need to give effect to Note w.e.f 1.4.2007 and it would have been made applicable only w.e.f 1.4.2009 the date with effect from Sub Rule (v) was given effect to. On the other hand, the Second Proviso is given w.e.f 1.4.2007. Second Proviso contains the word ‘hotel’. Hence the conclusion which could reasonably be arrived at is that the Note is applicable to the Second Proviso to Rule 19(iv) also. Surprisingly, even though the Second and Third provisos to Sub Rule (iv) and Sub Rule (v) in which provisions alone the word hotel occur, are omitted the Note still continues to remain in Rule 19 of Foreign Liquor Rules. Accordingly, I hold that the Second Proviso to Rule 19 (iv) is applicable only to the hotels having FL3 Licenses as defined in the Note. Accordingly, I hold that the Second Proviso to Rule 19 (iv) is applicable only to the hotels having FL3 Licenses as defined in the Note. Hence the demand for payment of Rs.2,00,000/-and Rs.20,00,000/-as per the Second Proviso to Rule 19(4) in the impugned orders is illegal and unsustainable since the Second Proviso to Rule 19(4) is not applicable to hotels having FL 11 License . 34. Issue No.3: This issue is with respect to the payment of fine under S.67(2). The petitioners have no quarrel with respect to their liability to pay the fine of Rs.3,00,000/-as admittedly the reconstitutions dt 31.08.2017 are made without permission of the commissioner as required. Necessarily, they have to pay the fine for regularization of the reconstitution as required under S.67(3). The contention of one of the petitioners KSR Alankar Hotels and Resorts P Ltd, which is imposed with three numbers of fine with respect to three hotels as per separate orders, is that it had admittedly done only one reconstitution and hence there can only be _ a single fine of Rs.3 lakhs. In other words, its contention is that the number of licenses held by them is not relevant or material for imposing the fine and it is the number of reconstitution of the Licensee that is relevant. According to the learned Senior Counsel three separate orders with respect to three licenses imposing three numbers of fine are clearly impermissible in law. On the other hand learned Senior Government Pleader submitted that even though one reconstitution is there, what is relevant is the number of licenses and not the licensee. According to him fine is imposed with relevance to the license when reconstitution is made in the Board of Directors. 35. It is seen from S.67(2) that when a reconstitution is made without permission of any deed on the strength of which any license is granted, the person holding license is liable to pay fine. So the emphasis is on the license and the liability to pay the fine is on the person holding license. Here the deed means the document on the basis of which the Board of Directors was constituted at the time of obtaining the License. If a single reconstitution of the deed has affected on several licenses, the licensee is liable to pay fine for each of the licenses. Here the deed means the document on the basis of which the Board of Directors was constituted at the time of obtaining the License. If a single reconstitution of the deed has affected on several licenses, the licensee is liable to pay fine for each of the licenses. Moreover, the Learned Senior Government Pleader pointed out that the petitioner itself has submitted three separate Applications for regularization volunteering to pay fine for each of the FL 11 Licenses correctly understanding the law. Since the reconstitution of KSR Alankar Hotels and Resorts Pvt.Ltd has affected on all the licenses which the company has obtained, the company is liable to pay fine for violation with respect to each of the licenses. Accordingly, I hold that the imposition of fine of Rs.3 lakh under S.67(2) with respect to each of the licenses of the company is clearly legal and permissible. 36. Issue No.4: As stated earlier, S.67(3) provides that the unauthorized reconstitution may be regularized on payment of fine imposed under S.67(2) and after accepting such fee as may be prescribed by Rules. The fee as stated in S. 67(3) is provided in Rule 19 of the FL Rules. Different kinds of fees are provided in Rule 19. Fee of Rs.1,00,000/-for reconstitution is provided in Rule 19 (iii) and fee of Rs.2,00,000/-for change of name is provided Rule 19 (iv). Both are distinct and separate. Both cannot go together. Though the words ‘change of name of the licensee’ occurring in Rule 19(iv) are a little bit confusing, when the provision is read along with the First Proviso, it indicates the fee is not attracted on a mere change of name of the existing licensee and the fee is attracted only when change of name involves change of license from one person to another person. Here admittedly, the petitioner company is the holder of license and not the persons in the management of the company. When persons in the management of the company is changed, or in other words, if the persons in the Board of Directors are changed it is only reconstitution of directors of the company and not change of name of the licensee. In such case the fee of Rs.1,00,000/-provided under Rule 19 (iii) alone is attracted. 37. When persons in the management of the company is changed, or in other words, if the persons in the Board of Directors are changed it is only reconstitution of directors of the company and not change of name of the licensee. In such case the fee of Rs.1,00,000/-provided under Rule 19 (iii) alone is attracted. 37. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner cited the decisions of this Court in Suresh Babu V.State of Kerala and Others 2000(2) KLJ 672 , State of Kerala V. Panamoottil Investments 2010 (1) KLT 557 and George Joseph V.Commissioner of Excise and Others ILR 2016(2) Ker 1047 and submitted that change in the management of the Licensee does not amount to change of name of the licensee. 38. In Suresh Babu’s case (supra) the dispute was among the partners of the licensee firm. The License was obtained in the name of the Managing partner of the firm. When the Managing partner was changed on the basis of the majority opinion of the partners, the original Managing Partner questioned the same contending that the License is in his name. The Learned Single Judge of this Court repelled the contention holding that the business is admittedly run by the partnership and that license was happened to be in the name of the petitioner therein only because he happened to be the Managing partner of the firm. Panamoottil Investments case (supra) was a case in which an existing partner is nominated as Joint Managing Partner in addition to the existing Managing partner. The Division Bench of this Court found that the Licensee is the Firm and the same partners are continued and hence when two Managing Partners are there to represent the firm it is not reconstitution to attract Rule 19(iii) and change of name to attract 19(iv). This decision is followed by the Single Bench of this Court in George Joseph’s case (supra) involving disputes between partners and held that Firm is the Licensee and the Managing Partner in whose name the License stood only represents the same. I am of the view that these decisions in which Firms are the Licensees do not have any bearing with respect the cases in which companies are the licensees. I am of the view that these decisions in which Firms are the Licensees do not have any bearing with respect the cases in which companies are the licensees. In the case of Partnerships, change in management of business among existing partners is not treated as reconstitution to attract the fee under Rule 19 (iii) and only when partnership is reconstituted there would be reconstitution to attract the fee under Rule 19 (iii). But in the case of the company change in management of the company, that is, change in the Board of Directors is treated as reconstitution to attract the fee under Rule 19 (iii). The reconstitution mentioned in Rule 19 (iii) need not be a reconstitution resulting in change of ownership as mentioned in Rule 19 (ii). When the fee for reconstitution under Rule 19 (iii) is attracted, the fee under Rule 19 (iv) will not be attracted. In these writ petitions there occurred change in the Board of Director amounting to reconstitution of the Board of Directors, I hold that fee for reconstitution provided under Rule 19(iii) is liable to be paid by the petitioners with respect to each of licenses held by them. 39. Issue No.5: This issue was raised with respect to the contention in W.P.(C)No. 12475/2019 that as on the date of reconstitution on 31.08.2017 of the Board of Directors of the company, its Hotel at Vadanappally was not functioning for want of license on account of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Tamilnadu Balu and Others 2017(1) KLT 132 (SC) [dated 15/06/2016] prohibiting Abkari outlets within 500 Mtrs from National Highway and State Highway. According to the petitioner, since the Hotel is situated in Panchayat Area, the same was permitted to commence business only from 19/03/2018 on the basis of Ext.P11 License dated 19/03/2018 consequent to the Clarificatory orders issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in Arrive Safe Society of Chandigarh V. Union of India 2017(3) KLT 923 (SC) [dated 11/07/2017] and State of Tamilnadu rep by its Sec. & Others V. K.Balu and Others 2018(1) KLT 842 (SC) [dated 23/02/2018]. In effect, the contention is that the petitioner did not have any FL License to attract fine under S.67(2)of the Act as on the date of reconstitution. 40. In effect, the contention is that the petitioner did not have any FL License to attract fine under S.67(2)of the Act as on the date of reconstitution. 40. The Learned Senior Government Pleader submitted that the petitioner could get FL 11 License under Rule 13(11B) on the account of the fact that it had FL 3 License as on 31/03/2014. Since the FL 11 License was renewed on 19.03.2018 in continuation of the FL 3 License, License should have been deemed to continue during the period in which reconstitution was made. It is difficult to accept the submission of the Learned Senior Government Pleader. FL 3 License and FL License are separate and distinct. FL 3 License is governed by provisions in Rule 13(3) and FL 11 License is governed by provisions in Rule 13(11). FL11 cannot be deemed as one issued in renewal of FL3. 41. S.67(2) of the Act provides to impose fine only on a person holding license or permit. So, holding of a license is mandatory for imposing fine for the violation. The respondents would have been justified in imposing fine in a situation if the petitioner was having License and he could not function the hotel on account of court orders. But here the situation is there was no license at the time reconstitution to impose fine alleging reconstitution without obtaining permission from the Commissioner. The deed on the strength of which license was granted, was not reconstituted during the period in which license was subsisting. Hence I hold that the petitioner in W.P.(C)No. 12475/2019 is not liable for fine under S.67(2) of the Act, with respect to the reconstitution dated 31.08.2017. 42. Issue No.6: In Ext.P9 which is impugned in WP(C) No. 29520/2019 it is seen that fine of Rs.3,00,000/-is imposed on each of the joint licensees as per S.67(2) of the Act. The imposition of fine on each of the joint licenses under S.67(2) is impermissible. Admittedly, the petitioner private limited company is the Licensee and there are no joint licensees available to impose fine. The person holding license liable for imposition of fine is the petitioner company. The petitioner company is liable to pay the fine for the unauthorized reconstitution of the deed on the strength of which license is obtained. Admittedly, the petitioner private limited company is the Licensee and there are no joint licensees available to impose fine. The person holding license liable for imposition of fine is the petitioner company. The petitioner company is liable to pay the fine for the unauthorized reconstitution of the deed on the strength of which license is obtained. Hence I hold that the petitioner is liable for a single fine of Rs.3,00,000/-for the reconstitution on 31/08/2017 with respect to the FL 11 License of its Angamaly Hotel. 43. In view of the above propositions of law laid down in this judgment, these writ petitions are allowed in part with the following directions. 1. the demands for payment of Rs.2,00,000/-and Rs.20,00,000/-as per the Second Proviso to Rule 19(4) of the Foreign Liquor Rules, 1953 in the impugned orders are declared unsustainable and hence the impugned orders are set aside to that extent. 2. The imposition of fine of Rs.3 lakh under Section 67(2) of the Abkari Act, 1077 with respect to each of the licenses of the company is upheld. 3. The petitioners are liable pay the fee of Rs.1,00,000/-provided under Rule 19 (iii) the Foreign Liquor Rules, 1953 for the reconstitution on 31.08.2017 with respect to each of the licenses. 4. The petitioners are not liable pay the fee of Rs.2,00,000/-provided under Rule 19 (iv) the Foreign Liquor Rules, 1953 for the reconstitution on 31.08.2017 and Ext.P9 impugned in W.P (C) No.29520/2019 is set aside to that extent. 5. The petitioner in W.P.(C)No. 12475/2019 is not liable for fine under S.67(2) of the Abkari Act, with respect to the reconstitution dated 31.08.2017 and hence Ext.P5 impugned therein is set aside to that extent. 6. The petitioner in WP(C) No. 29520/2019 is liable for a single fine of Rs.3,00,000/-for the reconstitution on 31/08/2017 with respect to the FL 11 License of its Angamaly Hotel and hence Ext.P9 impugned therein is set aside to the extent of demanding fine from joint licensees. 7. 6. The petitioner in WP(C) No. 29520/2019 is liable for a single fine of Rs.3,00,000/-for the reconstitution on 31/08/2017 with respect to the FL 11 License of its Angamaly Hotel and hence Ext.P9 impugned therein is set aside to the extent of demanding fine from joint licensees. 7. The competent among the respondents in these Writ petitions are directed make revised calculations as to the amounts payable by the petitioners in accordance with the directions in this judgment and communicate the same to the petitioners within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment and the petitioners shall satisfy the demands as per the revised calculations within a period of two months from the date of communication. 8. In case the petitioners have already remitted the amounts as per the impugned orders and excess payments are there from the petitioners as per the Revised Calculations, the respondents shall refund the excess payments within a period of three months from the date of issuance of the Revised Calculations. The Writ Petitions are allowed in part.