N.M.KARTHIKEYAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two appeals raise a common question of law and are also against a common judgment in two writ petitions, viz., W.P. (C).Nos.3170/2009 and 25230/2009 in both of which facts leading to the writ petitions are similar. In both the cases, the appellants applied for transfer of an existing licence in the name of another person prior to 1.4.2007. At the time when they filed the applications, as per the rules prevailing then, the appellants were entitled to have the transfer sanctioned by the Government, which were recommended by the concerned Excise officials. But, unfortunately for the appellants, the law changed by amendment of the rules with effect from 1.4.2007. As per the amendment rules, which are produced as Ext.P5 in W.P.(C).No. 25230/2009, for transfer also, the hotel for which transfer of licence has been applied, should have 3 Star classification. Admittedly, the hotels to the owners of whom the licences were sought to be transferred, did not have that qualification. The Government considered the applications filed by the appellants only after coming into force of the amended rules. Therefore, they applied the amended rules to the applications and rejected the same on the ground that, as per the amended rules, for transfer also, 3 Star classification is mandatory, which was not satisfied in the case of the appellants. The appellants challenged the orders of the Government by filing the writ petitions. By the common judgment in the two writ petitions, which is impugned in these appeals, a learned Single Judge of this Court dismissed the writ petitions relying on the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in W.A.No.544/2008, which, according to the learned Single Judge, holds the field and which lays down that the rules applicable are the one prevailing as on the date of consideration of the application and not the one as on the date of application. The appellants are challenging the common judgment of the learned Single Judge in the writ appeals.

(2.) THE contention of the appellants is that they having filed applications for transfer prior to coming into force of the rules and at the relevant time, the rules permitted such transfer even without a 3 Star classification, it is discriminatory and unjust to reject their applications solely on the ground that subsequent to the filing of the applications, the law changed. According to the appellants, the ratio of the decision in W.A.No.544/2008 by the Full Bench does not apply to the facts of their case, since the facts are distinguishable. The appellants would contend that in the decision of the Full Bench relied upon by the learned Single Judge, the question was not relating to transfer of an existing licence, but only consideration of an application for a fresh licence. According to the appellants, both the facts situation are totally different. Therefore, according to them, the decision relied upon by the learned Single Judge does not apply to the facts of the cases of the appellants.

(3.) WE have considered the rival contentions in detail.