2017 (8) TMI 1169

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sh Ext. P8 order passed by the 2nd respondent, the Deputy Excise Commissioner, Kottayam dated 28.6.2017 declining renewal of FL-11 licence in the name of 2nd petitioner and for other related reliefs. 2. Material facts for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows; 1st petitioner herein owns and runs a hotel in the name and style of 'The Windsor Castle Hotel' located at Kodimatha, Kottayam District. Second petitioner is the Managing Director of the 1st petitioner company. The hotel is situated allegedly in an extent of about 11 acres of land having a length of about 1 K.M. Its eastern boundary is M.C. Road, a State Highway and the western boundary is Kodoor river. The hotel comprises of building Nos.285A to 285U in Ward No. X....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n in the name of the 2nd petitioner especially due to the fact that, consequent to the orders passed by the Tribunal, certain developments had taken place, whereby the 2nd petitioner was extended with certain powers to manage the affairs of the hotel in question. Pursuant to Ext. P5 judgment, Ext. P6 communication was issued by the 1st respondent to the 2nd respondent to comply with the directives contained in Ext. P5 judgment, evident from Ext. P6. Petitioners have also submitted Ext. P7 letter dated 23.6.2017 to the 2nd respondent stating that, the vending room is 500 meters away from the State Highway, which is not visible from the Highway and it is also not having direct access from the Highway. It is also stated therein that, there is ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....o as to make an application for FL-3 licence by online. These are the background facts projected by the petitioners in this writ petition. 6. A statement is also filed for and on behalf of the 2nd respondent, justifying Ext.P8 order passed by the 2nd respondent. Among other contentions, it is stated that, as per rule 13(3) of the Foreign Liquor Rules, FL-3 licence is issued to a hotel. Likewise in the case of FL-11 licence issued in terms of rule 13(11) of the Foreign Liquor Rules, license is issued to a hotel. Rule 13(11B) of Foreign Liquor Rules enables grant of FL-11 licence to hotels wherein an FL-3 licence granted was in force as on 31.3.2014. According to the 2nd respondent, as per Rules 13(3), 13(11) and 13(11B), liences are issued ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on, especially with respect to the building where the bar room is situated at a distance of 586 meters away from the outer edge of the State Highway No.1. 8. Heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, Sri.Joseph Kodianthara, learned Senior Government Pleader, Sri. V. Manu and perused the pleadings and the documents on record. 9. The sole question to be decided is whether any manner of interference is warranted to Ext.P8 order passed by the 2nd respondent. Renewal of the licence was declined as per Ext.P8 order mainly on two grounds. The first ground is based on the proposition of law laid down by the Apex Court in the judgment in 'State of Tamil Nadu and others v. K. Balu and another' [2017 (1) KHC 26 (SC)], wherein a 500 me....