2017 (8) TMI 466 - HC - Indian Laws

Petitioners to File License Extension Applications by 29.06.2017

The Court directed the petitioners to file their license extension applications by 29.06.2017 and submit all required documents within one month from the ... Grant of licence in the existing premises - sale of liquor - time within which all documents are to be produced - main grievance of the petitioners is that it is difficult for the petitioners, who have to re-locate their Restaurants, to submit applications with all the enclosures in such short time without having appropriate premises - Held that: - this Court is of the view that no prejudice would be caused to the respondents, if the petitioners can be given time to produce all the relevant documents and permissions - petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner. Issues:Challenge to non-consideration of representation for grant of license extension, legality and arbitrariness of actions by respondents, compliance with new rules for license renewal, short timeframe for application submission, legality of Gazette Notification No.123 dated 23.06.2017.Analysis:The petitioners filed a writ petition seeking to challenge the respondents' failure to consider their representation for extending the license period until 30.09.2017 or granting a fresh license without reference to Rule 11(4) of the Rules. The petitioners established their Restaurants and Bars in 2006 under valid permissions/licenses, but faced challenges due to the new Bar Policy for 2017-2022 issued by the 1st respondent. The petitioners were required to apply for new licenses by a short deadline of 29.06.2017, as per Gazette Notification No.123, 23.06.2017. The petitioners argued that the timeframe provided for application submission was unreasonably short, especially considering the need to relocate their premises away from highways as per Apex Court orders. The main contention was the impracticality of fulfilling all conditions within the given timeframe, leading to the challenge of the Gazette Notification's legality.The petitioners contended that the short deadline for application submission was unreasonable, given the necessity to relocate their premises. The 4th respondent's action in fixing the deadline at 29.06.2017 was deemed illegal and arbitrary. The petitioners argued that they needed more time to comply with the Rules and submit all required documents. The Advocate General for the 1st respondent-State stated that applications could be filed online or in person by 29.06.2017, with a grace period of one month to submit all necessary documents and permissions.After considering the arguments, the Court directed that the petitioners could file their applications by 29.06.2017 and submit all relevant documents within one month from the deadline. The respondent authorities were instructed to process the applications promptly upon receiving all necessary documentation. The Court found that granting this extension would not prejudice the respondents and disposed of the writ petition with this direction, emphasizing expeditious processing of the applications in accordance with the law. The judgment concluded by stating that there would be no costs imposed and any related pending petitions would be closed.