1 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 4687/2007. (STATE & ORS. VS. HOTEL AJEET BHAWAN & ANR.) DATE OF ORDER : 08.08.2007. HON'BLE MR. GOVIND MATHUR, J. Mr. M.R. Singhvi for the petitioners. A penalty of sum of Rs.37,500/- was imposed upon the respondent “Hotel Ajeet Bhawan”as per Rule 72-A of the Rajasthan Excise Rules, 1956 for delayed submission of application for renewal of the licence to run a bar. The penalty aforesaid came to be set aside under an order dated 18.04.2007 passed by the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan accepting a revision petition preferred under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950. While giving challenge to the order aforesaid, it is contended by counsel for the petitioners that though the requisite fee for renewal of license was deposited by the respondent Hotel within the prescribed time limit, but the application for renewal was not presented within the limitation prescribed, therefore, the penalty was rightly fixed as per Rule 72-A of the Rules of 1956 and the Board of Revenue erred while setting aside the same. According to counsel for the petitioner, Rule 72-A of the Rules of 1956 prescribes that “every application for a licence shall clearly describe the premises in which the 2 applicant intends to conduct his business and shall be submitted in case of renewal at least one month before the commencement of the year and where the licence is granted for a longer period at least one month before the commencement of the first year of the period for which it is required and shall be accompanied by a treasury receipt showing payment of licence fee. The respondent Hotel despite deposition of licence fee submitted an application for renewal beyond the period of one month, therefore, the penalty imposed was nothing but application of law. I have examined the order impugned and considered the contentions raised by counsel for the petitioner. The Board of Revenue held that the deposition of renewal fee within the period prescribed depicts the intention of the respondent Hotel for getting the licence renewed, therefore, mere submission of application at delayed stage do not make it liable for penalty. I do not find any error in the inference drawn by learned Board of Revenue that may warrant interference of this Court under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition, therefore, is dismissed. (GOVIND MATHUR)J. Anil/