SIJOMON CHACKO Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed as a public interest litigation questioning the grant of Ext., P2 bar licence (FL3) to the fourth respondents hotel. Fourth respondent filed an application for grant of licence on 25th July, 1992. No orders were passed for long time and finally an order was passed rejecting his application for FL3 licence on 6.2.1993 on the basis of policy decision of the Government. Fourth respondent challenged the same before statutory forms. On 3rd March, 2000 Government rejected his application. He approached this court by filing O.P.No.14329 of 2000. By judgment dated March 9, 2004 (Ext.R4(f)), this court directed the Government to reconsider the application in the light of the various contention urged by the petitioner and also keeping in view the judgment of this court in B.Six Holiday Resorts (P) Ltd. V. State of Kerala (2002 (2) KLJ 941) and all other facts and circumstances. But the Government stuck to its earlier stand and rejected the application for licence yet again. Therefore, he approached this court again by filing W.P.(C) No.15642 of 2005 contending that at the time of his application, as per the policy and rules in force two star hotels were entitled to get a licence. But, his application cannot be rejected due to subsequent change in policy and hence relied on the decision of this in B. Six Holiday Resorts case and also pointed out that on similar directions from this court, licences were granted to several hotels. The above writ petition was disposed of Ext.R4(j) with the following directions:

(2.) Learned counsel for the fourth respondent first of all argued that the present litigation is not a public interest litigation but a private interest litigation motivated by spite against fourth respondent and motivated by rival licence holder. Petitioner is residing at Iddukki as per the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. His job is not mentioned in the affidavit or in the petition. But, in the counter affidavit it is stated as follows:

(3.) With regard to the main contention that the grant of licence was in violation of the policy existing at the time of issue, the matter is covered by the decision of this court in B.Six Holiday Resorts (P) Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala (2002 (2) KLJ 941) which is the against the petitioner. Petitioner has relied an a latest decision of this court in Radhamani Vs. State of Kerala (2005 (3) KLT 86) wherein in was held that the decision in B.Six Holiday Resorts case (supra) is not of universal application. Now we will come to the facts of Radhamanis case. Petitioner therein submitted her application on 4.3.1992. This court by judgment in O.P.No.13402 of 1992 dated 19th October, 1992 directed the Government to consider the same. It was rejected after change of policy. She kept quiet for 10 years. Then she filed an application on 24.10.2002 praying for considering her application filed in 1992. Thereafter she followed up and this court directed the Government to consider the same. Finally it was rejected as if the application filed only on 24.10.2002. Learned Single Judge in W.P.(C).No.18913/2004 held as follows: