The petitioner is conducting a hotel with four star classification issued by the Ministry of Tourism, Government of India. The petitioner has not been granted licence to conduct a Bar for the reason that, four star hotels are not eligible to apply for the grant of Bar licences as per the Abkari Policy, 2014-2015 of the State. Though the petitioner has submitted Ext.P3 application for the grant of a Bar licence (FL-3 licence), the application has not been considered in view of the Abkari Policy 2014-15. 2. As already noticed above, the petitioner has a hotel classified as four star by the Ministry of Tourism, Government of India. The petitioner has obtained all the other necessary certificates from the concerned authorities and has acquired eligibility for the grant of an FL-3 licence. It is the contention that, the petitioner satisfies all the necessary conditions and parameters stipulated by the Abkari Act as well as the Foreign Liquor Rules, for the purpose of being granted the privilege of conducting a Bar in the petitioner's hotel. The petitioner's application has not been considered for the sole reason that, the petitioner is ineligible to apply for such licence as per the Abkari Policy, 2014-2015. The counsel places reliance on the decision in Xaviers Residency v. State of Kerala [2014(4) KLT 419] where a batch of writ petitions challenging the Abkari Policy 2014-2015 were disposed of with the following directions:-
“In the result, it is ordered as follows:-
1. The challenge against the Abkari Policy 2014-2015, by the hotels classified as two star, three star and by hotels having no classification fails. The writ petitions filed by them are therefore dismissed.
2) The Abkari Policy 2014-2015, to the extent, it excludes hotels having Four Star and Heritage category hotels from the eligibility to be granted FL-3 licences under the Foreign Liquor Rules is set aside, being arbitrary and violative of Art.14 of the Constitution. The consequential amendments to the Foreign Liquor Rules as well as the proceedings of the Excise Commissioner cancelling the licences of such hotels are also set aside. The writ petitions filed by them are allowed as above.
3) The Abkari Policy 2014-2015 is sustained in all other respects, except to the extent indicated above.”
Appeals have been filed against the said judgment by the State as well as petitioners in the said writ petitions. All the appeals are pending consideration of the Division Bench. It is submitted by the learned Counsel Sri.M.G.Karthikeyan, who appears for the petitioner that though the appeal of the State has been admitted, the prayer for stay of operation of the judgment has been declined by the Division Bench, after hearing. Therefore, according to the counsel appearing for the petitioner in this case, the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of the dictum in the judgment referred to above. In view of the above, the petitioner seeks the issue of a direction to the State as well as the Excise Commissioner to consider the petitioner's application in accordance with law, within a stipulated time.
3. I have heard the counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Govt. Pleader who represents the State.
4. In view of the dictum laid down by the judgment in
Xaviers Residency v. State of Kerala (supra) that exclusion of four star hotels from the category of hotels eligible to seek the issue of FL-3 licences by the Abkari Policy 2014-2015 is bad, the petitioner is justified in his contentions. The petitioner is certainly entitled to seek the benefit of the dictum laid down by this Court, the operative portion of which I have already extracted above. In the light of the finding that hotels with four star classification are also eligible to be granted FL-3 licences, it is only appropriate that the application submitted by the petitioner herein is accepted by the Excise Authorities and considered in accordance with law.
This writ petition is therefore disposed of directing respondents 1 and 2 to consider Ext.P3 application for FL-3 license submitted by the petitioner in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner as well as the additional fifth respondent, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of two months of the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is made clear that, the additional fifth respondent shall be at liberty to raise and agitate all his contentions against the grant of FL-3 licence to the petitioner, before the second respondent.
Sd/-
K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE.
rkc.