Summarize the following court judgment. Civil Appeal No. 1801 of 1974. From the Judgment and Order 	dated 20.3.1974 of the Karnataka High Court in W.P. No. 1956 of 1971. R.N. Narasimhmurthy	 Novin Singh and M. Veerappa for the Appellants. The appeal is by special leave. Challenge is to the Judgment. 	of the Karnataka .High Court declaring Rule 8(1) of the Karnataka Excise (Sale of Indian & Foreign Liquors) Rules	 1968 in so far as it relates to levy of licence fee for retail vending of authorised India and foreign liquors and directing refund of such levy col lected within three years prior 2.8.1971 when the Writ Petition was filed. Respondent	 an excise contractor	 had taken in auction the exclusive privilege tosell liquors in retail at an approved shop premises. 'He was issued the appropriate licence under the provisions of the law on payment of licence fee in terms of Item 2 of Rule 8(1) of the aforesaid Rules. Respondent filed a writ petition before the Karnataka High Court chal lenging the vires of section 23(d) of the Mysore Excise Act	 1965 (hereafter 'Act ' for short) and Rule 8(1.) as being beyond the legislative competence of	the State Legislature. The High Court did not accept the contention of the respondent in 'regard to section 23 but held that Rule 8(1) authorising the 'levy of a licence fee for the retail off shop was without authority of law. Section 23(d)	 as far as relevant	 provides: "23. Ways of levying such duties Subject to such Rules regulating the time	 place and manner	 as may be prescribed	 excise duty and countervailing duty under section 22 shall be levied in one or more of the follow ing ways	 as may be prescribed	 namely: 702 (a) . . . (aa) . . . . (b) . . . . . (c). . . . . (d)by fees on licences in respect of manufacture or sale of any excisable articles. " Rule 8 made the rule making powers	 under the Act	 interalia	 provides: "8. Fee to be paid (1) The licence fee for the several kinds of licences shall be as follows	 namely: (1) . . . . . (2). . . . . (3) . . . . The High Court rightly did not accept the challenge to section 23(d) of the Act. What is authorised under section 23(d) is imposition of a fee of licence in respect of manufacture or sale of any excisable articles. Rule 8(1) has obviously gone beyond the enabling provision in the section by requir ing a licence fee to be paid for the premises where the licence shop is located. Such a fee would not have the support of section 23(d). It is unnecessary to refer to prece dents for support for this conclusion. It may be possible for the Legislature to make a statutory provision for a licence fee of the type contemplated under the Rules but without authority of the statute a rule of the type impugned should not have been made. We find no merit in this appeal and it is	 therefore	 diismissed. fore	 dismissed. Respondent did not appear inspite of service of appeal notice. We make no of for costs. G.N. Appeal dismissed.

The Respondent	 a licencee under floe Karnataka Excise Act for selling liquor at an approved shop	 flied a Writ Peti tion before the High Court challenging the vires of Section 23(d) of the Mysore Excise Act	 1965 and Rule 8(1) of the Karnataka Excise (Sale of Indian and Foreign Liquors) Rules	 1968 as being beyond the legislative competence of the State. The High Court negatived the contention of the Respond ent in respect of Section 23(d) of the Act but held that Rule 8(1) authorising tihe levy of licence fee for retail shop was without authority of law and dircted refund of the levy collected for three years prior to the filing of tiWrit Petition. Aggrieved by the High Court 's decision	 the appellant State has preferred the present appeal by special leave. Dismissing the appeal	 this Court	 HELD: The High Court rightly did not accept the chal lenge to Section 23(d) of the Mysore Excise Act	 1965. What is authorised under Section 23(d) is imposition of a fee of licence in respect of manufacture or sale of any excisable articles. Rule 8(1) of the Karnataka Excise (Sale of Iadion & Foreign Liquors) Rules	 1968 has obviously gone beyond the enabling provision in the section by requiring a licence fee to be paid for the premises where the licensed shop is located. Such a fee would not have the support of Section 23(d). It is unnecessary to refer to precedents for support for this conclusion. It may be possible for the Legisla 701 ture to make a statutory provision for a liicence fee of the type contemplated under the Rules but without authority of the statute a rule of this type should not have been made. [702E F]