SUBASH SOMAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Do the Abkari Act and the Rules made thereunder draw a distinction between a domestic terminal and an international terminal of an International Airport for the purpose of establishing an Executive Lounge where liquor is served to transiting passengers? The petitioner, a Private Limited Company, represented by its Managing Director, has Hotels and Resorts. In the writ petition, however, the Managing Director projected himself as the petitioner instead of representing the Company -a minor, curable discrepancy. In the course of time, the Company obtained Ext. P1 licence from the fourth respondent, the Airport Authority of India, to establish an Executive Lounge in the domestic terminal of the International Airport at Thiruvananthapuram. In terms of Clause 4 of Ext. P1 licence, the Company is entitled to sell Beer and Liquor at the Executive Lounge on the production of licence from the State Excise Department and also subject to payment of certain amounts to the Airport Authority of India.

(2.) The petitioner has applied to the Excise authorities through Ext. P2 for an FL -7 licence as per the Foreign Liquor Rules ('the Rules'), especially sub -rule (7) of Rule 13. Apart from submitting Ext. P2 application before the Excise officials, the petitioner has also submitted Ext. P4 application to the third respondent seeking a No Objection Certificate (NOC). For the Joint Commissioner of Excise, through Ext. P5, has insisted on the petitioner's obtaining an NOC from the third respondent, the local authority.

(3.) When the petitioner had applied for another NOC from the Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, the said authority, through Ext. P6, made it clear that the petitioner would not require any NOC from them since it was not dealing with any foreign liquor. At any rate, as can be seen from the record, the Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, at a later point in time, i.e. on 07/01/2016, issued Ext. P8 order reiterating what was stated in Ext. P6. And it was treated as an NOC, anyway.