The petitioner had been granted an FL3 licence in respect of a hotel owned by him. His licence has not been renewed after 31.3.2014 for the reason that his establishment comes within the 418 hotels that were identified by the Government as having no sufficient standards for the grant of an FL3 licence. In view of the Abkari Policy 2014-2015, the petitioner's hotel is not entitled to be granted the renewal that has been sought for. The petitioner has therefore sought the following reliefs in this writ petition:-
i) to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or such other writ, direction or order calling for the records leading to Exhibits-P4, P7 and P8 and to quash the same;
ii) to issue a writ of Mandamus or such other writ, direction or order commanding the respondents 1 to 3 to renew the FL-3 license issued to the petitioner in respect of his hotel Hotel Diana, Vadakkencherry, Palakkad and permit him to conduct the bar hotel till the expiry of the license period;
iii) to issue a writ of Mandamus or such other writ, direction or order declaring that Ext-P7 policy and Ext-P8 amendment are illegal, unconstitutional, unreasonable, arbitrary, irrational, beset with malafides, counterproductive to the object sought to be achieved and tourism policy of the Government, ultra vires Section 29 of the Abkari Act, violative of Article 14, Article 19(1)(g), Art.301 and Art 304 of Constitution of India and strike down Exts-P4, P7 & P8;
W.P.(C) No.31225 of 2014 2
iv) award to the petitioner the costs of these proceedings and;
v) to grant such other and further reliefs as are just, proper and necessary or may be prayed for.
2. According to the counsel for the petitioner Sri N.Raghuraj, as per the judgment dated 30.10.2014 in WPC No: 22195/2014 and connected writ petitions, this Court has sustained the Abkari Policy 2014-2015, to the extent it stipulates that hotels having classification of two star and three star are not eligible to be granted FL3 licences. The said judgment has been stayed by a Division Bench of this Court. As per the interim order passed by the Division Bench it is pointed out that, the status quo as on the date of promulgation of the Abkari Policy has been directed to be maintained. The said order of status quo would confer a right of renewal on the petitioner also.
3. Heard. The fact remains that, as per the judgment in WPC 22195/2014 and connected cases the Abkari Policy 2014-2015 in so far as it has excluded the non-standard hotels from the eligibility to seek FL3 licences as well as the claims of two star and three star hotels has been sustained. It is true that, the Division Bench has admitted appeals filed against the said judgment and has granted interim orders. However, the said interim order cannot confer any benefit on the petitioner or any other person for the reason that, an interim order is passed in the facts and circumstances of each case W.P.(C) No.31225 of 2014 3 and would benefit only the parties to the said case. Therefore, the petitioner cannot claim any relief on the basis of the interim order granted in writ appeals filed before the Division Bench by other parties. Secondly, whether the interim order granted by the Division Bench would entitle even the 418 non-standard hotels whose licences have not been renewed, to claim renewal of their licences is a matter that would have to be decided by the Division Bench itself. As at present, I find no grounds to grant any of the reliefs sought for in this writ petition.
For the above reasons, this writ petition is dismissed following the dictum in the judgment dated 30.10.2014 in WPC 22195/2014 and connected writ petitions.
Sd/-
K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE.
AV