Kerala High Court
Mayfair Hotel Rep. By Its Managing ... vs State Of Kerala on 4 June, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM
TUESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 14TH JYAISHTA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 30795 OF 2015
PETITIONER:
MAYFAIR HOTEL,
REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER,
M.P.JAYASREE,
W/O. DAMODHARAN NAIR
SABARI, SOUTH JANATHA ROAD,
PALARIVATTOM, KOCHI-25
BY ADV SRI.P.K.BABU
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY,
EXCISE DEPARTMENT,
THIRUVANANTHAPUAM-695 001.
2 THE COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE,
THIRUVANANTHAPUAM-695 001.
3 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE,
ERNAKULAM - 682 018
SRI.BIMAL K NATH-SR.GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
04.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 30795 OF 2015
2
JUDGMENT
1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging Ext. P5 order by which the request of the petitioner for FL 11 licence rejected under Rule 13 (11B) of the Foreign Liquor Rules on the ground that there is change of premises.
2. It is revealed from Ext.P5 order that the premises in which the petitioner had been conducting FL3 licence was vacated and the petitioner shifted the hotel to a new building at Pallimukku, Ernakulam. Rule 13 (11B) says the Deputy Commissioner to issue licence to the hotel where FL3 licence granted was in force as on 31/03/2014.
3. The learned Government Pleader pointed out that the 5th proviso to Rule 13(3) provides that licence of any bar hotel that remain defucnt for more than 10 months either during the period of the validity of the licence or after its expiry shall not be renewed. He also pointed out that the period of ten months was originally six months and the same was WP(C) NO. 30795 OF 2015 3 substituted with the period of 10 months as per amendment dated 07/01/2021. That apart clause (e) of Rule 13 (11B) refers to licensed premises which also indicates that the FL11 licence issued under Rule 13 (11B) shall be with respect to the same premises in which FL3 licence had been functioning till 31/03/2014.
4. In view of the aforesaid provisions I find that Ext.P5 is perfectly valid and legal.
5. Accordingly this writ petition fails and dismissed.
Sd/-
M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM JUDGE sms WP(C) NO. 30795 OF 2015 4 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 30795/2015 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT FILED BEFORE THE HIGH COURT BY THE PARTIES. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN OP(RC) 3367/2013 DATED 11-10-2013 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 28-01- 2015 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 25-05-2015 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.XC6- 17242/2015 DATED 31-07-2015.