Kerala High Court
M/S.Ksr Alankar Hotels And Resorts Pvt. ... vs State Of Kerala on 11 June, 2024
CR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM
TUESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 21ST JYAISHTA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 29520 OF 2019
PETITIONER:
M/S.KSR ALANKAR HOTELS AND RESORTS PVT. LTD.
REGISTERED OFFICE, DOOR NO. 39/3172, ANITHA BHAVAN, PALIYAM
ROAD, COCHIN-682 016, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
K.R. ROSHY, AGED 52 YEAR, S/O. K.S. RAMAKRISHNAN (LATE)
BY ADVS.
M.G.KARTHIKEYAN
SRI.NIREESH MATHEW
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REP. BY SECRETARY, TAXES (A) DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695 001.
2 THE EXCISE COMMISSIONER,
COMMISSIONERATE OF EXCISE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033.
3 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE,
ERNAKULAM, PIN-682 018
4 THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF EXCISE,
ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-683 101
BY ADV GOVERNMENT PLEADER
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI.BIMAL K NATH-SR.GP,SMT.K.B.SONY-GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29.05.2024,
ALONG WITH WP(C).4768/2019, 8291/2019 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON
11.06.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P(C) Nos.4768/2019, 8291/2019,
12475/2019 & 29520/2019
2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM
TUESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 21ST JYAISHTA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 4768 OF 2019
PETITIONER:
M/S.ALANKAR ELITE INNS AND HOTELS (P) LTD.,
CHELAKKARA, THRISSUR DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING
DIRECTOR, K.R SURAJ, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O. K.S RAMAKRISHNAN
(LATE)
BY ADVS.
C.C.THOMAS (SR.)
SRI.M.G.KARTHIKEYAN
SRI.NIREESH MATHEW
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REP. BY SECRETARY, TAXES (A) DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.
2 THE EXCISE COMMISSIONER,
COMMISSIONERATE OF EXCISE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 033.
3 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE,
THRISSUR, PIN 680 004.
4 THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF EXCISE,
WADAKKANCHERRY, THRISSUR DISTRICT PIN 680 582.
BY ADV GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. K.B SONY
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
29.05.2024, ALONG WITH WP(C).29520/2019 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT
ON 11.06.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P(C) Nos.4768/2019, 8291/2019,
12475/2019 & 29520/2019
3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM
TUESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 21ST JYAISHTA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 8291 OF 2019
PETITIONER:
M/S.KSR ALANKAR HOTELS
AND REPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED, REGISTERED OFFICE, DOOR NO.
39/3172, ANITHA BAHVAN, PALIYAM ROAD, COCHIN 682 016,
REPRESENTED BY TIS MANAGING DIRECTOR, K.R. ROSHY, AGED 52
YEARS, S/O.K.S. RAMAKRISHNAN (LATE.)
BY ADVS.
M.G.KARTHIKEYAN
SRI.NIREESH MATHEW
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, TAXES (A) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.
2 THE EXCISE COMMISSIONER,
COMMISSIONERATE OF EXCISE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 033.
3 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE,
ERNAKULAM 682 018.
4 THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF EXCISE,
ERNAKULAM 682 018.
BY ADV GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.B.SONY
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
29.05.2024, ALONG WITH WP(C).29520/2019 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT
ON 11.06.2024, THE FOLLOWING:
W.P(C) Nos.4768/2019, 8291/2019,
12475/2019 & 29520/2019
4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM
TUESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 21ST JYAISHTA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 12475 OF 2019
PETITIONER:
M/S.KSR ALANKAR HOTELS AND RESORTS PVT. LTD
REGISTERED OFFICE, DOOR NO.39/3172, ANITHA BHAVAN, PALIYAM
ROAD, COCHIN-682016, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
K.R.ROSHY, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O.K.S.RAMAKRISHNAN(LATE)
BY ADVS.
M.G.KARTHIKEYAN
SRI.NIREESH MATHEW
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REP. BY SECRETARY, TAXES (A) DEPARTMENT, GOVT.
SECRETIARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
2 THE EXCISE COMMISSIONER,
COMMISSIONERATE OF EXCISE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695033.
3 THE DEPUTY COMMISIONER OF EXCISE,
THRISUR, PIN-682008.
4 THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF EXCISE, VATRANAPPALLY,
THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680614.
BY ADV GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.B.SONY
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
29.05.2024, ALONG WITH WP(C).29520/2019 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT
ON 11.06.2024, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P(C) Nos.4768/2019, 8291/2019,
12475/2019 & 29520/2019
5
CR
M A ABDUL HAKHIM, J
-----------------------------
W.P(C) Nos.4768 of 2019, 8291 of 2019,
12475 of2019 & 29520 of 2019
--------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 11th day of June, 2024
JUDGMENT
1. The issues that arise for consideration in these writ petitions
are one and the same and hence I dispose of all these writ
petitions by a common judgment.
2. The principal question that arises for consideration is what are
the payments to be made by the Petitioners/Private Limited
Companies holding FL 11 license towards fine under Section
67(2) of the Abkari Act,1077 ('the Act' in short) and fees under
Rule 19 of the Foreign Liquor Rules,1953 ( 'FL Rules' in Short)
for regularization of the reconstitution of their Board of
Directors which was done without obtaining prior permission of
the Commissioner.
W.P(C) Nos.4768/2019, 8291/2019,
12475/2019 & 29520/2019
3. The petitioner in W.P(C) Nos. 8291/2019, 12475/19 &
29520/2019 is KSR Alankar Hotels and Resorts Pvt. Ltd. The
petitioner in W.P(C) No.4768/2019 is Alankar Elite Inns and
Hotels Pvt.Ltd.
4. KSR Alankar Hotels and Resorts Pvt. Ltd. reconstituted its
Board of Directors on 31.8.2017 whereby wife of the Managing
Director Mrs. Shereena Roshy is inducted to the Board and
brother of the Managing Director Mr. K.R.Suraj resigned from
the Board without obtaining permission from the
Commissioner. Since the said company was conducting three
hotels having FL 11 License - one at Vytila one at Angamaly
and one at Vadanappally, three separate orders were passed
regularizing the unauthorized reconstitution subject to
payment of fine as per S.67(2) of the Act and fee as per
Second Proviso to Rule 19(iv) of the FL Rules.
W.P(C) Nos.4768/2019, 8291/2019,
12475/2019 & 29520/2019
5. Since these writ petitions have been pending here since the
year 2019 with interim orders and since legal issues with
respect to the interpretation and applicability Statutory
provisions are involved, I consider and dispose these writ
petitions on merits.
6. The impugned Orders in W.P.(C) Nos. 8291/2019, 12475/19 &
29520/2019 are Ext.P5 dated 13.03.2009, Ext.P5 dated
13.03.2009 and Ext.P9 dated 23.10.2019 respectively.
7. In the impugned orders in W.P.(C) No. 8291/2019 and W.P.(C)
No.12475/2019 the unauthorized reconstitution was
regularized imposing a fine of Rs.3,00,000/- as per S.67(2)of
the Act and demanding realization of fee of Rs.20,00,000/- for
the induction of Mrs.Shereena Roshy as Director and a fee of
Rs,2,00,000/- for the retirement of Mr.K.R.Suraj from the
Board as per Second Proviso to Rule 19(iv) of the FL Rules.
W.P(C) Nos.4768/2019, 8291/2019,
12475/2019 & 29520/2019
8. In the impugned Order in W.P.(C) No.29520/2019 the
unauthorized reconstitution was regularized imposing a fine of
Rs.3,00,000/- each on the joint licensee as per S.67(2) of the
Act and demanding realization of fee of Rs.20,00,000/- for the
induction of Mrs.Shereena Roshy as Director and a fee of
Rs,2,00,000/- for the retirement of Mr.K.R.Suraj from the
Board as per Second Proviso to Rule 19(iv) of the FL Rules. It
is also stated that sanction is accorded to change the license
from the joint names of Mr.K.R.Roshy and Mr.K.R.Suraj to the
name of Mr.K.R.Roshy as per Rule 19(iv) by realizing a fee of
Rs.2,00,000/-.
9. W.P.(C) No. 8291/2019 relates to the hotel at Vyttila. W.P.(C)
No.12475/2019 relates to the hotel at Vadanappally and WP(C)
No. 29520/2019 relates to the hotel at Angamaly.
10. KSR Alankar Elite Inns and Hotels Pvt. Ltd reconstituted its
Board of Directors on 31.8.2017 whereby wife of the Managing
Director Mrs. Thulasi Suraj is inducted without obtaining
W.P(C) Nos.4768/2019, 8291/2019,
12475/2019 & 29520/2019
permission from the Commissioner. The said company was
conducting two hotels having FL11 License - one at Chelakkara
and one at Aluva. In Ext.P4 dated 14.11.2018 with respect to
Aluva Hotel impugned in W.P.(C) No.4768/2019 the
unauthorized reconstitution was regularized imposing a fine of
Rs.3,00,000/- as per S.67(2) of the Act and demanding
realization of fee of Rs.20,00,000/- for the induction of
Mrs.Thulasi Sooraj as Director as per Second Proviso to Rule
19(iv) of the FL Rules.
11. The Petitioners challenge the impugned orders so far as it
orders realization of fee as per Second Proviso to Rule 19(iv) of
the FL Rules. In W.P.(C) No.29520/2019 additional challenge is
made with respect to imposing fine as per S.67(2) on both the
joint licensees and demanding realization of fee of
Rs.2,00,000/- as per Rule 19(iv) for sanctioning change of
license. In W.P(C) No.12475/2019 a contention is raised that
W.P(C) Nos.4768/2019, 8291/2019,
12475/2019 & 29520/2019
no fine is payable for the Hotel at Vadanappally for want of
license as on the date of reconstitution.
12. According to petitioners, they are liable to pay only a fine of
Rs.3,00,000/- as per S.67(2) and fee of Rs.1,00,000/- as per
Rule 19(iii) for regularization of unauthorized reconstitution of
Board of Directors.
13. The respondents have filed Counter Affidavits opposing the
prayers in these writ petitions.
14. Though the petitioners in these writ petitions amended these
writ petitions incorporating the challenge against Second
Proviso to Rule 19(iv) of the Foreign Liquor Rules on the
ground that it is arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of the
constitution, the said prayer was not pressed during the
hearing.
15. Though the parties have made extensive pleadings in these
cases since the legal questions involved in these cases are to
W.P(C) Nos.4768/2019, 8291/2019,
12475/2019 & 29520/2019
be decided on the basis of admitted facts, I am not going into
those pleadings in details.
16. The issues in the Writ Petitions under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India are to be adjudicated either on the basis
of admitted facts or on the basis of facts proved from admitted
documents, in case of disputed questions of facts.
17. These writ petitions are to be decided on the basis of certain
admitted facts. Licensees are the petitioners/Private Limited
companies though the Licenses are obtained in the name of its
Managing Directors. In all these cases the petitioners were
having FL3 license till 31/03/2014 and the same was not
renewed thereafter on account of change of policy of the
Government that FL 3 Licenses are allowed only to Five Star
Hotels. Later the petitioners got FL11 License under Rule
13(11B) of the FL Rules on account of the fact that their FL3
license was in force as on 31.03.2014. The petitioners do not
W.P(C) Nos.4768/2019, 8291/2019,
12475/2019 & 29520/2019
have any quarrel with respect to imposition of Rs.3 lakhs for
regularizing the unauthorized reconstitution of Board of
Directors. The date of reconstitution of Board of Directors of
both the petitioners is 31.08.2017. The Second Proviso to Rule
19(iv) was there in the statute book as on the date of
reconstitution. The Second Proviso to Rule 19(iv) was omitted
with effect from 01.04.2018 and hence the same was not in
the Statute Book when the Applications for regularization are
submitted and when the impugned orders were passed
regularizing unauthorized reconstitution.
18. I heard Learned Senior Counsel Sri. C.C.Thomas instructed
by Adv. Sri.M.G.Karthikeyan for the petitioners and the
Learned Senior Government Pleader Sri.Bimal K Nath for the
respondents in these writ petitions.
19. Since the legal provisions involved in this adjudication are S.67
of the Act and Rule 19 the FL Rules as on 31.08.2017, the date
W.P(C) Nos.4768/2019, 8291/2019,
12475/2019 & 29520/2019
of reconstitution of Board of Directors of the petitioners, S.67
and Rule 19 as on 31.08.2017 are extracted hereunder.
Section 67. Power to impose fine-
(1) The Commissioner shall be competent to impose such fine as may be prescribed in the
rules, on any person holding a licence or permit issued under this Act, for contravention of
any rule made under this Act:
Provided that no order imposing any fine under this section shall be made without giving
the person an opportunity of being heard.
(2) The Commissioner may impose a fine of Rs.3,00,000 (Rupees three lakhs) each on
any person or persons holding a licence or permit under the Act for the violation by way of
reconstitution, alteration or modification without the permission of the Commissioner of any
deed on the strength of which any licence is granted
(3) Where a partnership firm or a company having a hotel (restaurant) holding a licence
under this Act has, without the previous permission of the Commissioner, re-constituted,
altered or modified any deed constituting such partnership or Board of Directors of the
company, on the strength of which such licence is granted, the Commissioner may, on
payment of the fine imposed under sub-section (2) and on an application from such
licensee and subject to the other provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder,
regularise such re-constitution, alteration or modification after accepting such fee as may
be prescribed by rules.
W.P(C) Nos.4768/2019, 8291/2019,
12475/2019 & 29520/2019
Rule 19
(i) under no circumstances shall any licence obtained under this notification be sold,
transferred or sub rented without the previous sanction of the Excise Commissioner.
(ii) Reconstitution of partnership by addition or deletion of members or reconstitution of
Directors in a Company resulting in change of ownership which owns/manages or
operates any licence issued under this rule shall be deemed to be transfer of licence.
(iii) Reconstitution of partnership/Directors of a company may be allowed on payment
of Rs.1,00,000 (Rupees one lakh only).(iv) Change of name of licensee may be allowed on
payment of Rs.2 Lakhs (rupees two lakhs only).
Provided that such change shall be allowed only if the incumbent in whose name the
licence is to be granted is eligible otherwise for obtaining a licence under these rules;
Provided further that the constitution/re-constitution of a partnership or Director Board of a
company of a hotel which does not have two star classification will be allowed on payment
of Rs.2,00,000 (Rupees two lakhs) for each partner/director opted out of the partnership or
Director Board of the company and on payment of Rs.20,00,000 (Rupees twenty lakhs) for
each partner/director inducted into the partnership or Director Board of the company, as
the case may be.
Provided also that change of name of licensee of a hotel which do not have two star or
above classification shall be allowed on payment of Rs.20,00,000 (Rupees twenty lakhs
only).
W.P(C) Nos.4768/2019, 8291/2019,
12475/2019 & 29520/2019
(v) Notwithstanding anything contained in this rule, in the case of death of a licensee of a
proprietorship concern or partner or a director of a partnership firm or a director of a
company that hold an FL-3 licence, the change of name of licensee, the reconstitution of
partnership or Board of Directors of a Company, as the case may be, will be allowed on
payment of Rs. 2 lakhs (Rupees two lakhs only) even if the hotel is not having star
classification.
(Note.-- 'Hotel' includes classified restaurants and such other hotels or restaurants having
classifications or certificates issued by concerned Government departments, on the
strength of which, FL 3 licences have been obtained.)
20. In the light of the pleadings and arguments of the parties
the following issues are to be decided on the basis of the
above admitted facts.
1. Which is the relevant law to be applied for payment of
fee for regularization of unauthorized reconstitution of
Board of Directors, whether it be the law as on the date
of reconstitution or whether the law as on the date of
passing the impugned orders allowing regularization is
to be applied?
W.P(C) Nos.4768/2019, 8291/2019,
12475/2019 & 29520/2019
2. Is the Second Proviso to Rule 19(iv) of the FL Rules
applicable only to Hotels having FL 3 License in view of
the Note defining 'Hotel' in Rule 19 which includes only
hotels having FL3 License?
3. Is the Fine as per S.67(2) to be imposed on each of the
Licenses of the Licensee or on the Licensee alone
irrespective of the number of Licenses, for violation by
way of unauthorized reconstitution?
4. Is the petitioner in W.P (C) No.29520/2019 liable to
pay Rs.2,00,000/- provided in Rule 19(iv) of the FL
Rules for change of name?
5. Whether the petitioner in W.P(C) No.12475/2019 is
liable to pay fine for its Hotel at Vadanappally, since it
did not have license as on the date of reconstitution?
6. Is it legally permissible to impose fine on each of the
Licensees as did in Ext.P9 which is impugned in WP(C)
No.28520/2019?
W.P(C) Nos.4768/2019, 8291/2019,
12475/2019 & 29520/2019
21. Issue No.1: The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner,
on the strength of the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in State of Kerala and another v. B.Six Holiday
Resorts (P) Limited & Etc. 2010 (5) SCC 186 and State
of Kerala v. M/s Palakkad Heritage Hotels 2017(13)
SCC 672 submitted that the Second Proviso to Rule 19(iv)
of the FL Rules was not there in the Statute book as on the
date of passing the impugned orders and hence the
regularization reconstitution has to be done without
reference to the same. He submitted that, since
Rs.2,00,000/- and Rs.20,00,000/- mentioned in the Second
Proviso are in the nature of fee and hence the law as on the
date of consideration of the matter is to be taken into
account. On this ground the charging of Rs.2,00,000/- and
Rs.20,00,000/- as per the Second Proviso to Rule 19(iv) in
the impugned orders are clearly unsustainable, according to
him. He also referred to G.O(Rt) No.975/2015/TD dt
31.12.2015 which is produced as an Additional Exhibit in all
W.P(C) Nos.4768/2019, 8291/2019,
12475/2019 & 29520/2019
these cases. By referring to Paragraph 5 of the said G.O he
argued that the Government itself has admitted that in the
case of fee the law as on the date of consideration of
application is relevant.
22. In M/s Palakkad Heritage Hotels (supra) the question
involved was whether the law applicable on the date of
recommendation made by the subordinate authority or
whether the law applicable as on the final decision taken by
the competent authority is to be applied. In that case the
Application was for a grant of FL11 license. The Excise
Commissioner made recommendation on 28.03.2012. The
FL Rules were amended with effect from 18.04.2012 which
prescribes the minimum distance of 200 meters from
objectionable institutions. The learned Single Judge of this
Court, relying on the Division Bench of this Court in
Kallada Hotels and Resorts v. State of Kerala 2012
(2) KLT 167 wherein it was held that the law to be applied
for consideration of Application for grant of license must be
W.P(C) Nos.4768/2019, 8291/2019,
12475/2019 & 29520/2019
the law as on the date on which the Excise Commissioner
made recommendation for grant of license, held that when
the Excise Commissioner recommends the Application for
grant of license on the basis of a Rule in force on that date,
subsequent amendment should not be relied on to assail
the same. The decision of the learned Single Judge was
affirmed in writ appeal. Allowing the Appeal filed by the
State in part remanding the matter, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court held that the date on which formal and final decision
is taken by the competent authority alone would be the
relevant date and recommendation made by the
subordinate authority even if significant for taking a formal
decision by the competent authority will be of no avail. It
was also held that the Application submitted by the
respondent for grant of license unquestionably must be
treated as pending and consideration on the date of
amendment of the Foreign Liquor Rules.
W.P(C) Nos.4768/2019, 8291/2019,
12475/2019 & 29520/2019
23. In B.Six Holiday Resorts P. Ltd (supra) the question was
with respect to the law applicable for an application for FL3
license. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the
consideration of application should be with respect to the
law applicable on the date when the authority considers the
application for grant of license and not with respect to the
date of application. It was further held that the direction of
this Court that the Application for license should be
considered with reference to the Rules as they existed on
the date of application cannot be sustained.
24. The principle laid down in the aforesaid two Supreme Court
decisions cannot be applied generally in all cases. They are
slightly distinguishable since the question involved in the
said case was not with respect to the payment of fee. The
parameters for granting Foreign Liquor license changes
from time to time. If the parameters as on the date of
application is considered, sometimes it may be against the
policy existing at the time of grant of license. Since the
W.P(C) Nos.4768/2019, 8291/2019,
12475/2019 & 29520/2019
license to be granted is to run prospectively it has to be in
conformity with the policy and law existing as on the date of
granting the license.
25. In the Government Order G.O(Rt)No.975/2015 while
considering a Review in an individual case, the Government
took a stand that the fine of Rs.25,000/- under S.67(2)
which was existing as on the date of reconstitution of the
Board of Directors on 24.10.2012 is to be taken and not the
fine of Rs.3,00,000/- increased with effect from 26.04.2013
on the ground that it is fine and not fee. The Government
set aside the imposition of fine of Rs.3,00,000/- and
ordered regularize the reconstitution by imposing a fine of
Rs.25,000/- with reference to the Rule existing as on the
date of reconstitution. The Learned Senior Counsel argued
that it indicates that in case of fee, the fee payable as per
the law as on the date of consideration of the application is
relevant. I am of the view that whatever be stand taken by
the Government in a Government Order in an individual
W.P(C) Nos.4768/2019, 8291/2019,
12475/2019 & 29520/2019
case, the same is not binding on this Court and this Court is
to decide the matter independently.
26. Nothing is stated with respect to the nature of payment of
Rs.2,00,000/- or Rs.20,00,000/- which is provided in the
Second Proviso to Rule 19(iv) of the FL Rules. S.67 of the
Act deals with fine. S.67(3) provides that the unauthorized
reconstitution may be regularized on payment of fine
imposed under S.67(2) and after accepting such fee as may
be prescribed by Rules. The fee as stated in S.67(3) is
provided in Rule 19 of the FL Rules. So the payments of
Rs.2,00,000/- or Rs.20,00,000/- provided the Second
Proviso to Rule 19(4) can only be a fee and not a fine. If the
nature of payment is only a fee, the fee as per the law
existing on the date of consideration is applicable. Even if it
is assumed that the date of application is to be made
applicable, the applications in these cases are after
01.04.2018,with effect from which date the Second Proviso
to Rule 19(iv) is deleted. The contention of the learned
W.P(C) Nos.4768/2019, 8291/2019,
12475/2019 & 29520/2019
Senior Government Pleader that the fee as on the date of
reconstitution is to be taken into account is not sustainable
since the question of payment of fee arises only on
submission of the application for regularization. Hence the
demand for payment of Rs.2,00,000/- and Rs.20,00,000/-
as per the Second Proviso to Rule 19(4) in the impugned
orders is illegal and unsustainable since the Second Proviso
to Rule 19(4) was not there in existence at the time of
passing the impugned orders.
27. Issue No.2: the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner
submitted that the Second Proviso to Rule 19(iv) of the
Foreign Liquor Rules is applicable only to Hotels having FL 3
License in view of the Note defining 'Hotel' at the end of
Rule19. According to the learned Senior Counsel the word
hotel defined in the said Note includes only hotels having
FL3 licenses. He submitted that since the Note is applicable
to the entire Rule 19, the hotel mentioned in the Second
Proviso can only be hotel having FL3 license and as such
W.P(C) Nos.4768/2019, 8291/2019,
12475/2019 & 29520/2019
the fee prescribed in the Second Proviso is not applicable to
the regularization of unauthorized reconstitution of hotels
having FL11 license.
28. On the other hand the learned Senior Government Pleader
argues that the said Note comes below sub-rule (v) of Rule
19 and is intended only for the purpose of defining the
'hotel' mentioned in sub-rule (v) of Rule 19 and hence the
same is not applicable to the Second Proviso Rule 19(iv).
He submitted that the fee prescribed in the Second proviso
is applicable to the reconstitution with respect to all the
licenses including FL 11 and not limited to FL3 alone.
29. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner invited my
attention to the Government Order G.O(P) No.72/2012 /TD
dt 18.04.2012 which is produced as an Additional Exhibit in
these writ petitions by which The Foreign Liquor (6 th
amendment) Rules 2012 was introduced. He invited my
attention to Rule 4 by which a Proviso same as the Second
Proviso in Rule 19(iv) is included to condition No.13 in FL3
W.P(C) Nos.4768/2019, 8291/2019,
12475/2019 & 29520/2019
License by way of substitution. He argued that such a
Proviso was not included in FL11 License on the correct
understanding of law that the Second Proviso in Rule 19(iv)
is not applicable to FL11 License in view of the Note in Rule
19.
30. On the other hand, the contention of the learned Senior
Government Pleader is that the Second Proviso in Rule
19(iv) is not included in FL11 License on account the
presence of Condition No.18 therein. According to him on
account of Condition No.18, the Second Proviso in Rule
19(iv) is applicable to FL 11 License and hence it is not
repeated in the conditions.
31. The Condition No.18 in FL11 is that the licensee shall be
bound by all the relevant Rules which have been made
under the Abkari Act as subsequently amended and
continue in force and which may hereafter be passed under
the Abkari Act or under any law related to Abkari revenue
which may hereafter be passed. He pointed out that such a
W.P(C) Nos.4768/2019, 8291/2019,
12475/2019 & 29520/2019
condition is there only in FL11 and not in FL3 and only on
account of absence of such a condition in FL3 a Proviso
similar to the Second Proviso in Rule 19(iv) was included
in condition No.13 to for FL3.
32. I am unable to accept the argument of the learned Senior
Government Pleader for the reason that even without
Condition No.18 in FL11, the Licensee is bound by all the
relevant Rules which have been made under the Abkari Act
as subsequently amended and continue in force and which
may be later passed under the Abkari Act or under any law
related to Abkari revenue which may later be passed.
Condition No.18 in FL 11 License is not meant to cover the
area which the Second Proviso in Rule 19(iv) is occupied.
33. There are other indications also to hold that the said Note is
not confined to Rule 19(v). The word 'hotel' occurs in the
Second and Third Provisos to Sub Rule (iv) and in the Sub
Rule (v) of Rule 19. The Second Proviso was inserted for the
first time as per G.O(P) No.44/2007/TD dt 13.03.2007 w.e.f
W.P(C) Nos.4768/2019, 8291/2019,
12475/2019 & 29520/2019
01.04.2007. Sub Rule (v) was inserted by SRO
No.214/2009 dt 4.3.2009 w.e.f. 01.04.2009. The Note was
inserted by GO (P) No.227/2009/TD dt 15.12.2009 w.e.f
1.4.2007. Sub Rule (v) is not there w.e.f 1.4.2007. If the
Note is intended for Sub Rule (v) alone as contended by the
Learned Government Pleader, there was no need to give
effect to Note w.e.f 1.4.2007 and it would have been made
applicable only w.e.f 1.4.2009 the date with effect from Sub
Rule (v) was given effect to. On the other hand, the Second
Proviso is given w.e.f 1.4.2007. Second Proviso contains the
word 'hotel'. Hence the conclusion which could reasonably
be arrived at is that the Note is applicable to the Second
Proviso to Rule 19(iv) also. Surprisingly, even though the
Second and Third provisos to Sub Rule (iv) and Sub Rule
(v) in which provisions alone the word hotel occur, are
omitted the Note still continues to remain in Rule 19 of
Foreign Liquor Rules. Accordingly, I hold that the Second
Proviso to Rule 19 (iv) is applicable only to the hotels
W.P(C) Nos.4768/2019, 8291/2019,
12475/2019 & 29520/2019
having FL3 Licenses as defined in the Note. Hence the
demand for payment of Rs.2,00,000/- and Rs.20,00,000/-
as per the Second Proviso to Rule 19(4) in the impugned
orders is illegal and unsustainable since the Second Proviso
to Rule 19(4) is not applicable to hotels having FL 11
License .
34. Issue No.3: This issue is with respect to the payment of fine
under S.67(2). The petitioners have no quarrel with respect
to their liability to pay the fine of Rs.3,00,000/- as
admittedly the reconstitutions dt 31.08.2017 are made
without permission of the commissioner as required.
Necessarily, they have to pay the fine for regularization of
the reconstitution as required under S.67(3). The
contention of one of the petitioners KSR Alankar Hotels and
Resorts P,Ltd, which is imposed with three numbers of fine
with respect to three hotels as per separate orders, is that it
had admittedly done only one reconstitution and hence
there can only be _ a single fine of Rs.3 lakhs. In other
W.P(C) Nos.4768/2019, 8291/2019,
12475/2019 & 29520/2019
words, its contention is that the number of licenses held by
them is not relevant or material for imposing the fine and it
is the number of reconstitution of the Licensee that is
relevant. According to the learned Senior Counsel three
separate orders with respect to three licenses imposing
three numbers of fine are clearly impermissible in law. On
the other hand learned Senior Government Pleader
submitted that even though one reconstitution is there,
what is relevant is the number of licenses and not the
licensee. According to him fine is imposed with relevance to
the license when reconstitution is made in the Board of
Directors.
35. It is seen from S.67(2) that when a reconstitution is made
without permission of any deed on the strength of which
any license is granted, the person holding license is liable to
pay fine. So the emphasis is on the license and the liability
to pay the fine is on the person holding license. Here the
deed means the document on the basis of which the Board
W.P(C) Nos.4768/2019, 8291/2019,
12475/2019 & 29520/2019
of Directors was constituted at the time of obtaining the
License. If a single reconstitution of the deed has affected
on several licenses, the licensee is liable to pay fine for each
of the licenses. Moreover, the Learned Senior Government
Pleader pointed out that the petitioner itself has submitted
three separate Applications for regularization volunteering
to pay fine for each of the FL 11 Licenses correctly
understanding the law. Since the reconstitution of KSR
Alankar Hotels and Resorts Pvt.Ltd has affected on all the
licenses which the company has obtained, the company is
liable to pay fine for violation with respect to each of the
licenses. Accordingly, I hold that the imposition of fine of
Rs.3 lakh under S.67(2) with respect to each of the licenses
of the company is clearly legal and permissible.
36. Issue No.4: As stated earlier, S.67(3) provides that the
unauthorized reconstitution may be regularized on payment
of fine imposed under S.67(2) and after accepting such fee
as may be prescribed by Rules. The fee as stated in S.
W.P(C) Nos.4768/2019, 8291/2019,
12475/2019 & 29520/2019
67(3) is provided in Rule 19 of the FL Rules. Different kinds
of fees are provided in Rule 19. Fee of Rs.1,00,000/- for
reconstitution is provided in Rule 19 (iii) and fee of
Rs.2,00,000/- for change of name is provided Rule 19 (iv).
Both are distinct and separate. Both cannot go together.
Though the words 'change of name of the licensee'
occurring in Rule 19(iv) are a little bit confusing, when the
provision is read along with the First Proviso, it indicates the
fee is not attracted on a mere change of name of the
existing licensee and the fee is attracted only when change
of name involves change of license from one person to
another person. Here admittedly, the petitioner company is
the holder of license and not the persons in the
management of the company. When persons in the
management of the company is changed, or in other words,
if the persons in the Board of Directors are changed it is
only reconstitution of directors of the company and not
change of name of the licensee. In such case the fee of
W.P(C) Nos.4768/2019, 8291/2019,
12475/2019 & 29520/2019
Rs.1,00,000/- provided under Rule 19 (iii) alone is
attracted.
37. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner cited the
decisions of this Court in Suresh Babu V.State of Kerala
and Others 2000(2) KLJ 672, State of Kerala V.
Panamoottil Investments 2010 (1) KLT 557 and
George Joseph V.Commissioner of Excise and Others
ILR 2016(2) Ker 1047 and submitted that change in the
management of the Licensee does not amount to change of
name of the licensee.
38. In Suresh Babu's case (supra) the dispute was among the
partners of the licensee firm. The License was obtained in
the name of the Managing partner of the firm. When the
Managing partner was changed on the basis of the majority
opinion of the partners, the original Managing Partner
questioned the same contending that the License is in his
name. The Learned Single Judge of this Court repelled the
contention holding that the business is admittedly run by
W.P(C) Nos.4768/2019, 8291/2019,
12475/2019 & 29520/2019
the partnership and that license was happened to be in the
name of the petitioner therein only because he happened to
be the Managing partner of the firm. Panamoottil
Investments case (supra) was a case in which an existing
partner is nominated as Joint Managing Partner in addition
to the existing Managing partner. The Division Bench of
this Court found that the Licensee is the Firm and the same
partners are continued and hence when two Managing
Partners are there to represent the firm it is not
reconstitution to attract Rule 19(iii) and change of name to
attract 19(iv). This decision is followed by the Single Bench
of this Court in George Joseph's case (supra) involving
disputes between partners and held that Firm is the
Licensee and the Managing Partner in whose name the
License stood only represents the same. I am of the view
that these decisions in which Firms are the Licensees do not
have any bearing with respect the cases in which companies
are the licensees. In the case of Partnerships, change in
W.P(C) Nos.4768/2019, 8291/2019,
12475/2019 & 29520/2019
management of business among existing partners is not
treated as reconstitution to attract the fee under Rule 19
(iii) and only when partnership is reconstituted there would
be reconstitution to attract the fee under Rule 19 (iii). But
in the case of the company change in management of the
company, that is, change in the Board of Directors is
treated as reconstitution to attract the fee under Rule 19
(iii). The reconstitution mentioned in Rule 19 (iii) need not
be a reconstitution resulting in change of ownership as
mentioned in Rule 19 (ii). When the fee for reconstitution
under Rule 19 (iii) is attracted, the fee under Rule 19 (iv)
will not be attracted. In these writ petitions there occurred
change in the Board of Director amounting to reconstitution
of the Board of Directors, I hold that fee for reconstitution
provided under Rule 19(iii) is liable to be paid by the
petitioners with respect to each of licenses held by them.
39. Issue No.5: This issue was raised with respect to the
contention in W.P.(C)No. 12475/2019 that as on the date of
W.P(C) Nos.4768/2019, 8291/2019,
12475/2019 & 29520/2019
reconstitution on 31.08.2017 of the Board of Directors of
the company, its Hotel at Vadanappally was not functioning
for want of license on account of the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Tamilnadu Balu and
Others 2017(1) KLT 132 (SC) [dated 15/06/2016]
prohibiting Abkari outlets within 500 Mtrs from National
Highway and State Highway. According to the petitioner,
since the Hotel is situated in Panchayat Area, the same was
permitted to commence business only from 19/03/2018 on
the basis of Ext.P11 License dated 19/03/2018 consequent
to the Clarificatory orders issued by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court reported in Arrive Safe Society of Chandigarh V.
Union of India 2017(3) KLT 923(SC) [dated
11/07/2017] and State of Tamilnadu rep by its Sec. &
Others V. K.Balu and Others 2018(1) KLT 842(SC)
[dated 23/02/2018]. In effect, the contention is that the
petitioner did not have any FL License to attract fine under
S.67(2)of the Act as on the date of reconstitution.
W.P(C) Nos.4768/2019, 8291/2019,
12475/2019 & 29520/2019
40. The Learned Senior Government Pleader submitted that the
petitioner could get FL 11 License under Rule 13(11B) on
the account of the fact that it had FL 3 License as on
31/03/2014. Since the FL 11 License was renewed on
19.03.2018 in continuation of the FL 3 License, License
should have been deemed to continue during the period in
which reconstitution was made. It is difficult to accept the
submission of the Learned Senior Government Pleader. FL 3
License and FL License are separate and distinct. FL 3
License is governed by provisions in Rule 13(3) and FL 11
License is governed by provisions in Rule 13(11). FL11
cannot be deemed as one issued in renewal of FL3.
41. S.67(2) of the Act provides to impose fine only on a person
holding license or permit. So, holding of a license is
mandatory for imposing fine for the violation. The
respondents would have been justified in imposing fine in a
situation if the petitioner was having License and he could
not function the hotel on account of court orders. But here
W.P(C) Nos.4768/2019, 8291/2019,
12475/2019 & 29520/2019
the situation is there was no license at the time
reconstitution to impose fine alleging reconstitution without
obtaining permission from the Commissioner. The deed on
the strength of which license was granted, was not
reconstituted during the period in which license was
subsisting. Hence I hold that the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.
12475/2019 is not liable for fine under S.67(2) of the Act,
with respect to the reconstitution dated 31.08.2017.
42. Issue No.6: In Ext.P9 which is impugned in WP(C) No.
29520/2019 it is seen that fine of Rs.3,00,000/- is imposed
on each of the joint licensees as per S.67(2) of the Act. The
imposition of fine on each of the joint licenses under
S.67(2) is impermissible. Admittedly, the petitioner private
limited company is the Licensee and there are no joint
licensees available to impose fine. The person holding
license liable for imposition of fine is the petitioner
company. The petitioner company is liable to pay the fine
for the unauthorized reconstitution of the deed on the
W.P(C) Nos.4768/2019, 8291/2019,
12475/2019 & 29520/2019
strength of which license is obtained. Hence I hold that the
petitioner is liable for a single fine of Rs.3,00,000/- for the
reconstitution on 31/08/2017 with respect to the FL 11
License of its Angamaly Hotel.
43. In view of the above propositions of law laid down in this
judgment, these writ petitions are allowed in part with the
following directions.
1. the demands for payment of Rs.2,00,000/- and
Rs.20,00,000/- as per the Second Proviso to Rule 19(4) of
the Foreign Liquor Rules, 1953 in the impugned orders are
declared unsustainable and hence the impugned orders are
set aside to that extent.
2. The imposition of fine of Rs.3 lakh under Section 67(2) of
the Abkari Act, 1077 with respect to each of the licenses of
the company is upheld.
3. The petitioners are liable pay the fee of Rs.1,00,000/-
provided under Rule 19 (iii) the Foreign Liquor Rules, 1953
W.P(C) Nos.4768/2019, 8291/2019,
12475/2019 & 29520/2019
for the reconstitution on 31.08.2017 with respect to each of
the licenses.
4. The petitioners are not liable pay the fee of Rs.2,00,000/-
provided under Rule 19 (iv) the Foreign Liquor Rules, 1953
for the reconstitution on 31.08.2017 and Ext.P9 impugned
in W.P (C) No.29520/2019 is set aside to that extent.
5. The petitioner in W.P.(C)No. 12475/2019 is not liable for
fine under S.67(2) of the Abkari Act, with respect to the
reconstitution dated 31.08.2017 and hence Ext.P5
impugned therein is set aside to that extent.
6. The petitioner in WP(C) No. 29520/2019 is liable for a
single fine of Rs.3,00,000/- for the reconstitution on
31/08/2017 with respect to the FL 11 License of its
Angamaly Hotel and hence Ext.P9 impugned therein is set
aside to the extent of demanding fine from joint licensees.
7. The competent among the respondents in these Writ
petitions are directed make revised calculations as to the
amounts payable by the petitioners in accordance with the
W.P(C) Nos.4768/2019, 8291/2019,
12475/2019 & 29520/2019
directions in this judgment and communicate the same to
the petitioners within a period of three months from the
date of receipt of copy of this judgment and the petitioners
shall satisfy the demands as per the revised calculations
within a period of two months from the date of
communication.
8. In case the petitioners have already remitted the amounts
as per the impugned orders and excess payments are there
from the petitioners as per the Revised Calculations, the
respondents shall refund the excess payments within a
period of three months from the date of issuance of the
Revised Calculations.
The Writ Petitions are allowed in part.
Sd/-
M A ABDUL HAKHIM, JUDGE
jma
W.P(C) Nos.4768/2019, 8291/2019,
12475/2019 & 29520/2019
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 29520/2019
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 PHOTOCOPY OF THE FL-11 LICENSE NO.62 ISSUED BY
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, DATED 05-01-
Exhibit P2 PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 22-11-2018
SUBMITTED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT THROUGH THE 4TH
RESPONDENT
Exhibit P3 PHOTOCOPY OF THE NOTIFICATION , S.R.O. NO.
351/2018 DATED 01.06.2018 ISSUED BY THE GOVT.
OF KERALA.
Exhibit P4 PHOTOCOPY OF THE BRIEF NOTES OF ARGUMENT
SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED
23.01.2019.
Exhibit P5 PHOTOCOPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED
19.03.2019 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P6 PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPLY DATED 30.03.2019 SENT TO
THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P7 PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22.03.2019 IN
WP(C) NO. 8291/2019 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE
COURT.
Exhibit P8 PHOTOCOPY OF THE CHALAN EVIDENCING THE PAYMENT
OF RS. 25 LAKHS, DATED 23.03.2019.
Exhibit P9 PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER NO.
EXC/5755(2)/2018/X.C6 DATED 23.10.2019 PASSED
BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P10 PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER NO.G.O(MS) NO.
438/2020/T.D DATED 28-06-2020 PASSED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT
Exhibit P11 PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER,
NO.E.X.C./3734/2019/X.C.6 DATED 13-07-2020
PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P12 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE FL-11 LICENSE RENEWAL
CERTIFICATE DATED 26.08.2017 ISSUED BY THE 3RD
W.P(C) Nos.4768/2019, 8291/2019,
12475/2019 & 29520/2019
RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P13 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE NOTIFICATION,
GO(P)NO.72/2012/TD DATED 18.04.2012 ISSUED BY
THE GOVT.
Exhibit P14 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER, GO(RT)
NO.975/2015/TD DATED 30.12.2015 ISSUED BY THE
1ST RESPONDENT.
W.P(C) Nos.4768/2019, 8291/2019,
12475/2019 & 29520/2019
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 4768/2019
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 PHOTOCOPY OF THE FL-3 LICENSE RENEWAL
CERTIFICATE DATED 27-03-2018.
EXHIBIT P2 PHOTOCOPY OF THE NOTICE NO. C.02/2018 DATED 11-
06-2018 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P3 PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 15-06-2018
SUBMITTED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT THROUGH THE 4TH
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P4 PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER NO. E.X.C/3848/18/X.C.6
DATED 14-11-2018 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P5 PHOTOCOPY OF THE NOTIFICATION, S.R.O.NO.35/2018
ISSUED BY THE GOVT. OF KERALA.
Exhibit P6 PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER NO.G.O(MS)
NO.438/2020/T.D DATED 28.06.2020 PASSED BY THE
1ST RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P7 PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER,
NO.E.X.C./3734/2019/X.C.6 DATED 13.07.2020
PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P8 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE NOTIFICATION,
GO(P)NO.72/2012/TD DATED 18.04.2012 ISSUED BY
THE GOVT.
Exhibit P9 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER, GO(RT)
NO.975/2015/TD DATED 30.12.2015 ISSUED BY THE
1ST RESPONDENT.
Exhibit R4(a) TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 06.03.2019
OF EXCISE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, ERNAKULAM, TO
THE EXCISE COMMISSIONER, ERNAKULAM.
Exhibit R4(b) THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO E5-1267/19 DATED
06.03.2019
W.P(C) Nos.4768/2019, 8291/2019,
12475/2019 & 29520/2019
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 8291/2019
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 PHOTOCOPY OF THE FL-11 LICENSE NO. 72, ISSUED
BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, DATED
05.01.2015.
Exhibit P2 PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 22.11.2018
SUBMITTED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT THROUGH THE 4TH
RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P3 PHOTOCOPY OF THE NOTIFICATION S.R.O. NO.
351/2018 DATED 1.6.2018 ISSUED BY THE GOVT. OF
KERALA.
Exhibit P4 PHOTOCOPY OF THE BRIEF NOTES OF ARGUMENT
SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED
23.01.2019.
Exhibit P5 PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER NO. EXC/5760/2018/X.C.6
DATED 13.3.2019 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P6 PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER NO.G.O(MS)
NO.438/2020/T.D DATED 28-06-2020 PASSED BY THE
1ST RESPONDENT
Exhibit P7 PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER,
NO.E.X.C./3734/2019/X.C.6 DATED 13-07-2020
PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P8 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE FL-11 LICENSE RENEWAL
CERTIFICATE DATED 26.08.2017 ISSUED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P9 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE NOTIFICATION,
SRO.NO.258/2012 DATED 18.04.2012 ISSUED BY THE
GOVT.
Exhibit P10 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER, GO(RT)
NO.975/2015/TD DATED 30.12.2015 ISSUED BY THE
1ST RESPONDENT.
W.P(C) Nos.4768/2019, 8291/2019,
12475/2019 & 29520/2019
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 12475/2019
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 PHOTOCOPY OF THE FL-11 LICENSE TSR-41 ISSUED BY THE
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, THRISSUR DATED
17.04.2015.
Exhibit P2 PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 22.11.2018
SUBMITTED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT THROUGH THE 4TH
RESPONDENT
Exhibit P3 PHOTOCOPY OF THE NOTIFICATION, S.R.O. NO.351/2018
DATED 01.06.2018 ISSUED BY THE GOVT. OF KERALA.
Exhibit P4 PHOTOCOPY OF THE BRIEF NOTES OF ARGUMENT SUBMITTED
BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 23.01.2019
Exhibit P5 PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER NO.EXC/5760/2018/X.C.6 DATED
13.03.2019 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P6 PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22.03.2019 IN
WP(C)NO.8291/2019 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT.
Exhibit P7 PHOTOCOPY OF THE CHALAN EVIDENCING THE PAYMENT OF
RS.25,00,000/- DATED 23.03.2019
Exhibit P8 PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER NO.E.X.C/5761/2018-X.C.6
DATED 02.04.2019 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P9 PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER NO-G.O.(MS) NO-438/2020/T.D.
DATED 28.6.2020 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
Exhibit P10 PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER, NO.EXC./3734/2019/X.C.6
DATED 13.7.2020 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P11 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE FL-11 LICENSE RENEWAL
CERTIFICATE DATED 19.03.2018 ISSUED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P12 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE NOTIFICATION, SRO.NO.258/2012
DATED 18.04.2012 ISSUED BY THE GOVT.
Exhibit P13 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER, GO(RT) NO.975/2015/TD
DATED 30.12.2015 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
