K JANARDHANAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner did have FL-3 licence issued under Ruler 13(3)of the Foreign Liquor Rules in respect of his hotel. That license was current until 31.3.1990. When he was constrained to close his hotel because of labour disputes. he surrendered the premises where the hotel was housed. thereafter the licence was not renewed. The petitioner thereafter pursued his effort to get another premises for the conduct of the hotel. He also therefore thought of shifting his FL-3 shop to his new hotel in terms of Rule 24 of the Foreign Liquor Rules. He made an application in that regard. That was finally rejected as per Ext. P9. It is impugned in this O.P.

(2.) It is submitted by the counsel, impugning the said order, that the provisions that contained in rule 13 as well as Rule 14 enables renewal of a defunct licence on remittance of the appropriate fee as was liable to be remitted on timely renewal. Therefore an existing license could be renewed and the commissioner has no option but to accord approval to the renewal application except so far as it does have any disqualification as mentioned in Rule 13, 13A and 14. Such disqualification is not applicable to the petitioner or to his new premises. Therefore the licence shall be renewed and it shall be allowed to be shifted to the new premises in terms of Rule 24 of the Foreign liquor Rules.

(3.) A learned single judge has earlier construing Rule 24 had held that a defunct licence can be renewed and allowed to be shifted, the counsel submits. An unreported Division Bench decision in O.P. 19394/97 also will indicate that the shifting in such circumstances was permissible. Therefore the impugned order Ext. P9 is totally unjustified in so far as it does not grant renewal of the licence and its shifting. The Commissioner in Ext. P9 took the view that;