Court Orders Reconsideration of FL3 License Application with Prompt Decision

The court directed respondents 1 and 2 to reconsider the petitioner's application for an FL3 license in light of received reports and the amended Rule 13(3) of the Foreign Liquor Rules. The court emphasized the need for a prompt decision within one month, allowing the petitioner an opportunity to be heard. The court refrained from determining the petitioner's eligibility post-amendment, stressing the competent authority's responsibility to make a fresh decision based on available records.

---

---

Issues involved: Application for FL3 license rejection, eligibility post amendment to Rule 13(3) of Foreign Liquor Rules, consideration of application based on previous recommendation.

In the judgment, the petitioner's application for FL3 license was initially rejected due to lack of recommendation from respondents 3 and 4 and the objectionable location of the proposed Hotel. However, upon re-consideration, the 2nd respondent directed fresh measurement of the distance from the objectionable temple, leading to a recommendation for the license based on reports confirming compliance with prescribed limits. Despite this, no decision was made, prompting the petitioner to seek court intervention to set aside the initial rejection (Ext.P6).

Regarding the impact of the amendment to Rule 13(3) of the Foreign Liquor Rules, the 2nd respondent contended that the petitioner may not be eligible post-amendment. However, it was acknowledged that the application was forwarded with a recommendation for the license before the introduction of the amendment.

The petitioner's counsel argued that since the application was recommended before the amendment, the petitioner should be entitled to the license based on the rule in effect at the time of the recommendation. The court refrained from determining the petitioner's eligibility, emphasizing the need for the competent authority to make a fresh decision based on the available records.

Consequently, the court directed respondents 1 and 2 to reconsider the application in light of the received reports and the changed law, ensuring a decision is made promptly, within one month of receiving the judgment, with an opportunity for the petitioner to be heard.

---