RAMAVARMA CLUB Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is a Club which was constituted as a Society under the Travancore-Cochin Literary, Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act, 1955. According to the petitioner it is started functioning in the year 1897. The petitioner has approached this court challenging Ext.P6 which is an order isued by the Deputy Excise Commissioner (Abkari) refusing to change / substitute name of the Secreary of the Club in the licence issued to the petitioner under Rule 13 (4A) of the Foreign Liquor Rules 1974. (Licence in Form FL-4A) The Deputy Excise Commisioner through Ext.P6 demanded payment of Rs.2,00,000.00 in terms of the provisions contained in Rule 19 (iv) of the Foreign Liquor Rules, 1974, for teh same.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the petitioner by a Division Bench decision of this court in State of Kerala and others v. Cochin Gymkhana Club; 2016 (3) KLT 55, wherein it was held that when office bearers of a Club which is registered as a society changes from time to time it cannot be said that there is a change in the identity of the licencee attracting the demand for fee under Rule 19 (iv) of the Foreign Liquor Rules. It is submitted that Rules have also been amended with effect from 1/4/2020 and a proviso has been added to Rule 19 (iv) of the Foreign Liquor Rules as follows; "Provided further that no fee shall be levied for the change of name of licensee in respect of licence in Form FL 4A, due to the change in the office bearers of the club."

(3.) The learned Government Pleader submits that Ext.P6 communication was issued demanding payment of Rs.2,00,000.00 in terms of the provisions contained in the Foreign Liquor Rules as it then stood. It is submitted that that amendment to the Foreign Liquor Rules pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner came into force with effect from 11-04- 2020 and therefore the demand in Ext.P6 cannot be disputed. However, it is not seriously disputed that an identical issue was considered by this court in Cochin Gymkhana Club (supra).