KALARIKKAL HOTELS P LTD Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Appellant established a three star hotel in the temple town of Guruvayur and applied for a Bar licence, which, according to the appellant, basically is for catering to the needs of the tourists. Under Rule 13(3) of the Foreign Liquor Rules framed under the Abkari Act, Government, in the interest of promotion of tourism in the State, can order the Excise Commissioner to grant FL-3 Hotel (Restaurant) licence to hotels which have star classification above 3. The field officers of the Excise Department starting from the Circle Inspector of police, the Assistant Commissioner of Excise and Deputy Commissioner of Excise and even the Excise Commissioner recommended the issue of bar licence to the Appellant as the Appellant's hotel is located 350 metres away from the temple, the restriction being within 200 metres from the temple. However, inspite of the favourable reports from subordinate officers and even the Excise Commissioner, the State Government declined approval of grant of licence in exercise of powers conferred under Rule 39 of the Rules for the reason that public interest does not justify issue of liquor licence to appellant's hotel. The brief order produced as Ext.P3 and which was challenged by the Appellant before the learned single Judge reads as follows:

(2.) The Appellant filed Writ Petition challenging the above order of the Government on many grounds, the most important of which is discrimination and violation of Article 14 of the Constitution for the reason that from year to year, Government is renewing FL-3 licence issued to three hotels and FL-1 licence issued to the retail liquor shop maintained by the Government of Kerala company, namely the Kerala State Beverages Corporation Limited, which are similarly located like appellant's hotel, that is not very far from the temple but outside the prohibited distance. The learned single Judge, however considered the matter in detail and held that the Government is free to deny licence under Rule 39 if it is of the opinion that granting of licence is against public interest. The learned single Judge, therefore upheld the Government's order issued based on objections raised by the Guruvayur Devaswom Administration and other objectors. Before the learned single Judge Guruvayur Devaswom got impleaded which supported the impugned order of the Government. In the Writ Appeal filed before us, two additional Respondents are also impleaded, one Guruvayur Brahmin Samooham and the other Guruvayur Janakiya Samithy, both objecting to the grant of FL-3 licence to Appellant's hotel We have heard senior counsel Sri. C.C. Thomas appearing for the Appellant, Government Pleader appearing for the State and its agencies, standing counsel for Guruvayur Devaswom and Senior Advocate Sri. K.P. Dandapani appearing for additional Respondents impleaded.

(3.) The senior counsel appearing for the Appellant referred to the constitution bench of the Supreme Court in Khoday Distilleries Ltd. and Ors. v. State of Karnataka and Ors., 1995 1 SCC 574 where the Supreme Court, after holding that citizens have no fundamental right to trade or do business in liquor as a beverage, held that when the State permits trade or business in potable liquor with or without limitation, the citizen has the right to carry on trade or business subject to the limitations, if any and the State cannot make discrimination between the citizens who are qualified to carry on the trade or business. Before considering the question whether there is discrimination against the Appellant in regard to the grant of licence, we called for the particulars of the details of the liquor business in the Guruvayur municipality which is essentially a town formed around the famous Sree Krishna Temple. The details furnished show annual turnover of business in liquor in the three bar hotels and the one liquor shop maintained by the Kerala Government Company as follows: