N SUDHAKARAN Vs. REGIONAL DIRECTOR (SOUTH) INDIA TOURISM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the owner in possession of an item of immovable property, in which he is conducting a hotel and restaurant. He was having two star classification for his establishment, issued by the 1st respondent-Tourism Department. On the strength of the star classification granted to the petitioner, he was also granted a beer parlour licence to sell beer and wine by the Excise Department. When the petitioner applied for the renewal of his Trade Licence to the 3rd respondent, his application was rejected. Such rejection was also confirmed in appeal. The petitioner has challenged the said proceedings Exhibit P3, in Revision Petition No. 107/2013 before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions, Thiruvananthapuram (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal' for short). As per Exhibit P4, the Tribunal has granted an interim order of stay of Exhibit P3. In the meantime, the two star classification granted to the petitioner had expired on 12.11.2012. Though, the petitioner had applied for renewal of the star classification, the same was returned by the 1st respondent, without passing any orders thereon. Therefore, the petitioner had approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 21742/2012. As per judgment dated 9.11.2012, the 1st respondent was directed to dispose of the application within two months. Meanwhile, the FL. 11 licence granted to the petitioner had been renewed by the 2nd respondent on condition that the petitioner produced the two star classification certificate on or before 30.6.2013. But, the petitioner could not obtain renewal of his certificate of two star classification before the said date. Therefore, the petitioner again approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 10118/2013. The said Writ Petition was disposed of by me granting the petitioner three months' further time from 30.6.2013. In the meantime, by Exhibit P8 proceedings dated 21.1.2013, the petitioner's application for the renewal of his star classification has been rejected. It has been found that his application suffers from a number of defects, that are listed in Exhibit P8. Therefore, while rejecting his application, the petitioner has been given the liberty to apply afresh with all necessary documents, after rectifying the defects, that are pointed out. The petitioner, in the above circumstances, is faced with a situation where he is not in a position to obtain renewal of the FL. 11 licence that he was all along being issued with for the past 10 years. The petitioner seeks the grant of further time of six weeks for production of the star classification certificate. Meanwhile, he seeks the issue of appropriate directions for the renewal of his FL. 11 licence, without insisting on production of the star classification certificate.

(2.) The learned Government Pleader appears for respondents 1 and 2. Advocate Sri P.K. Manoj Kumar appears for the 3rd respondent.

(3.) Heard.