SUBASH SOMAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

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?

(2.) 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 Exhibit 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 Exhibit 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.

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