IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH DECEMBER 2008 / 26TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 34765 of 2008(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M/S.JOY' THE BEACH RESORT PVT.LTD., CHOWARA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, T.C.PAUL, AGED 56 YEARS, S/O.LATE K.C.CHACKO. BY ADV. SRI.M.G.KARTHIKEYAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY TAXES (A) DEPARTMENT, GOVT.SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE EXCISE COMMISSIONER, COMMISSIONERATE OF EXCISE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE ASST.EXCISE COMMISSIONER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF EXCISE, NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. 5. THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR (SOUTH), INDIAN TOURISM (CHENNAI), GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, SOUTHERN REGIONAL OFFICE, 154, ANNA SALAI, CHENNAI - 600 002. GOVT. PLEADER SMT. K.R. DEEPA. ADV. SRI. P. PARAMESWARAN NAIR, ASST. SOLITOR GENERAL. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W. P (C) No. 34765 of 2008 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 17th December, 2008. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a Company registered under the Companies Act. According to them, they have constructed a resort having a three star classification at Chovvara, near Kovalam, Thiruvananthapuram district. For commercial purposes, the Company is stated to have named the resort as The Travancore Heritage. The classification certificate of the resort is in the trade name 'Travancore Heritage' , as evidenced by Exts.P1 and P2. The petitioner submitted an application for a FL 11 licence for the resort by name 'Travancore Heritage'. The petitioner claims that it has been recommended by Ext. P5 also. However, the 1st respondent has, by Ext. P7, informed the petitioner that the application for licence is rejected as the resort does not have the requisite classification certificate required for granting a FL 11 licence as per the existing rules. The contention of the petitioner is that both the petitioner-Company and Travancore Heritage resort are owned by the petitioner-Company and as such there is no difference between the two. 2. The learned Government Pleader, on instructions, submits that the petitioner has two units, one having three star classification and the other which does not have a star classification having different building numbers also. However, the resort having three star classification is within the prohibited distance from a Harijan Colony and the petitioner is trying to get a licence for that resort by showing the other unit which does not have three star classification as the resort for which licence is applied on the ground that the same is beyond the prohibited distance. 3. I am not inclined to go into the controversy presented before me in so far as before passing Ext. P7, the petitioner has not been afforded an opportunity of being heard. The petitioner submits that W.P.C. No. 34765/2008 -: 2 :- the 1st respondent may be directed to give him a hearing before taking a final decision in the matter. In the above circumstances, I dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the Government to take a fresh decision in the matter, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/ [True copy] P.S to Judge.