M G THOMAS Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Although Sri.Grashious Kuriakose, appearing on behalf of the appellants, submits that the issue agitated could be examined along with another writ appeal, namely W.A.No.1049 of 2005, on the submissions made, we do not think such a course may be prudent or necessary.

(2.) The appellant had mortgaged his properties to third parties, where they are conducting business on the basis of FL-3 licence issued under the Abkari Act. He has taken steps for redeeming the mortgage and had informed the authorities that his formal consent is not there for running the establishment, but such objections practically were ignored. In the meanwhile, he had come to know that the Government had amended the Kerala Abkari Shops Disposal Rules, by introducing a proviso to Rule 7, whereby a grantee of privilege for sale of liquor should produce written consent from the owners of building, where the shop is proposed to be licensed. But this stipulation is there only in respect of Toddy Shops and FL-1 outlets. According to the petitioner, this is discriminatory as there was no reason for excluding FL-3 licensees from the arrangements.

(3.) The learned single Judge had dismissed the writ petition (W.P.(C).No.11796 of 2005) pointing out that being a policy decision, the court cannot make inroads so as to direct the Government to amend the rules. However, the counsel submits that this was not the request made, but the Government's attention alone had been invited to Ext.P3 representation submitted by him. If there was an omission, it would have been possible for the Government to consider it.