M/S. K R Thekkedathu Mana ... vs The Hotel And Restaurants ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 15747 Ker

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                            PRESENT
        THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR
  FRIDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF JULY 2021 / 8TH SRAVANA, 1943
                  WP(C) NO. 15249 OF 2021
PETITIONER:

          M/S. K R THEKKEDATHU MANA AYURVEDIC HERITAGE
          RESORTS, KADANGOD P.O., ERUMAPETTY VIA, THRISSUR
          DISTRICT-680584, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING
          PARTNER, RANJITH K. REGHUNATHAN, AGED 42 YEARS,
          S/O. K. REGHUNATHAN (LATE), RESIDING AT
          KATTAMBIL HOUSE, COLONY ROAD, PERIMPILAV,
          THRISSUR DISTRICT.
          BY ADVS.
          M.G.KARTHIKEYAN
          NIREESH MATHEW

RESPONDENTS:

    1     THE HOTEL AND RESTAURANTS APPROVAL AND
          CLASSIFICATION COMMITTEE (HRACC), MINISTRY OF
          TOURISM, C1-HUTMENTS, DALHOUSIE ROAD, NEW DELHI-
          110011, REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY.
    2     THE HOTEL AND RESTAURANTS APPROVAL AND
          CLASSIFICATION COMMITTEE (HRACC) (SOUTH),
          REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL DIRECTOR AND
          CONVENER, SOUTHERN REGIONAL OFFICE, 154, ANNA
          SALAI, CHENNAI-600002.
    3     STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY,
          TOURISM DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
          THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
          SMT.P.VIJAYAKUMARI ASG
     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP            FOR
ADMISSION ON 30.07.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME            DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C) No.15249 of 2021                 2




                       W.P.(C) No.15249 of 2021
               -----------------------------------------------


                            JUDGMENT

Petitioner owns a hotel. They preferred an

application for its classification before the first respondent. It is

alleged by the petitioner that before considering the

application for classification, the hotel of the petitioner needs

to be inspected by the competent authority under the first

respondent, and though the application has been filed during

August 2020, the inspection contemplated is yet to be carried

out. The petitioner, therefore, seeks appropriate directions in

this regard in the writ petition.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as

also the learned Central Government Counsel.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the

case, especially the orders passed by this court in similar and

identical writ petitions, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the

writ petition directing respondents 1 and 2 to inspect the hotel

of the petitioner and take a final decision on the application for

classification submitted by the petitioner, within three months

from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. Ordered

accordingly.

Sd/-

P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE.

YKB

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 15249/2021

PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE TRACK APPLICATION STATUS OBTAINED FROM THE WEBSITE.

Exhibit P2 PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 01/03/2021 IN WPC 4135/2021 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT.