“……Further reliance was also placed by the respondents herein under Rule 28 of the A.P. Excise (Arrack and Toddy Licenses General Conditions) Rules, 1969, which states that notwithstanding the suspension of licences, the licensee is liable to pay the rental along with the interest till the finalisation of the action initiated against the licensees or restoration of the licence, whichever is earlier. Therefore, it was stated that the petitioner cannot escape the liability. On a conspectus of the fact involved, there is no dispute to the aspect that admittedly the petitioner is a new entity having been formed with few members of the erstwhile society. There cannot be any dispute in regard to the fact that the erstwhile T.C.S., Komatikunta and the petitioner society are totally two different legal entities and the petitioner society is not outcome of any proceedings at the instance of the erstwhile T.C.S., Komatikunta. There is no allegation at any point of time that the petitioner society has passed any resolution or taken a decision as such. On a given set of circumstances, it is amply clear that the petitioner was in fact seeking formation of new society and for grant of fresh licences at this juncture. The president appears to have given a statement, but on itself does not show any authority conferred by him in respect of mulcting the liabilities on the petitioner society. There is no other provision placed by the Government Pleader to show that such liability can continue to exist, especially where members are one and the same. The only rule, which has been cited across the bar is Rule 28 as aforesaid, which in no way contemplates that any such liabilities can be passed on to the subsequently formed society, though by the same members.
