AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1993 (11) TMI 234
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ancel all Foreign Liquor (Hotel/Restaurant) Licences under Rule 13(3) of the Kerala Foreign Liquor Rules 1974 to hotels/restaurant/tourist homes during the financial year 1992- 93. They challenged the orders in the High Court by way of writ petitions. The petitions were dismissed on 1st February 1993. Two Special Leave Petitions were filed against this order. One was numbered as 2310-17 of 1993 and the other as 3391 of 1993. Some of other petitions came up for hearing before the High Court on 4th March 1993 which were decided on 10th March 1993. This order was challenged by Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 4152 of 1993. In Special Leave Petition Nos. 2310-17 of 1993 and 3391 of 1993 a bench of this Court on 1st March 1993 passed following....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e which in its turn returned it with instructions to dispose of them in the light of G.D. No. 179/92/TD dated 9th November 1992. On 24th May 1993 the Excise Commissioner rejected the applications for renewal in the light of G.O. dated 9th November 1992 as directed by the Board. This order has been challenged by a separate Special Leave Petition (C) No. 5808 of 1993 in which notice was issued on 13th May 1993. 2. Lengthy arguments were advanced by learned Counsel for both the sides. One the questions that was raised was if the appellants have a fundamental right to carry on trade in liquor. This question has been referred to a Constitution bench by a bench of three judges of this Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 4708-12 1989. The Civil Appeal N....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hout examining it on merits was not liable to be heard. The State defended both its policy decision and the order. 4. Although we do not propose to decide if any statement was made on behalf of the State Government and it purported to interfere with the courts of justice as sufficient material has not been placed on record but we consider it necessary to record our disapproval of the nature of affidavit filed by the Secretary (Excise) on such and important issue. Paragraph 11 of the counter-affidavit is reproduced below: I submit that the allegation in Para 5 of Special Leave Petition No. 5808 of 1993 that "the Government have made its mind clear, on the very next day of the order of this Hon'ble Court which was prominently flashe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the submission of the learned Additional Solicitor General that renewal of fresh grant normally are not dealt with by the same yardstick, yet we do not consider it necessary to pronounce on it as validity of the G.D. issued on 9th November 1992 is subject matter of challenge in other appeals which we have directed to be heard along with other appeals pending before Constitution Bench. As stated earlier we are concerned in this appeal only with correctness of the order dated 24th May 1993. The opposite parties have rejected the applications filed by the petitioners on the ground that the State Government having taking a policy decision on 9th November 1992 not to issue licences the appellants were not entitle to claim renewal. The order wa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n was being enforced or implemented in the State. True, that some public interested persons are agitating but the validity of the State action has to be judged on positive steps taken by the State for enforcing the policy. But in the affidavits filed by the State no material has been brought on record to show that any concrete step has been taken in this regard. Moreover the appellants are hoteliers who granted licence for promoting tourism. No figure has been furnished about traffic in these hotels. The agitation must be against consumption of liquor. How is the State curtailing it by permitting import of arrack has not been explained. In fact it is not disputed in the affidavit filed by the Excise Secretary that import was permitted under....