IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 11TH JUNE 2009 / 21ST JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 13798 of 2009(T) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ DARLEY GEORGE, W/O GEORGE, MATTATHIL KURUTHIVALIL HOUSE, KURAVILANGADU, KOTTAYAM – 680 036, MANAGING PARTNER, JAYARAJ LODGE, PERUMBAVOOR. BY ADV. MR.GEORGE THOMAS (MEVADA) RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE DY. COMMISSIONER(EXCISE), OFFICE OF THE DY. COMMISSIONER, EXCISE, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR(EXCISE), OFFICE OF THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF EXCISE, PERUMBAVOOR. 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. MR. M.D.RAJAN, S/O LATE M.N.DAMODARAN, JAYARAJ BHAVAN, PERUMBAVOOR. 5. V.K.MALLIKA, W/O LATE M.N.DAMODARAN, JAYARAJ BHAVAN, PERUMBAVOOR. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. K.R. DEEPA R4 & R5 BY MR. T.KRISHNANUNNI, SENIOR ADVOCATE, BY ADV. MR.ANIL KUMAR SREEDHARAN, MR.T.R.ASWAS. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/06/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss THOTTATHIL B RADHAKRISHNAN, J ........................................... WP(C).NO. 13798 OF 2009 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 11th DAY OF JUNE, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner applied for renewal of an FL-3 license under the Foreign Liquor Rules in relation to a partnership firm, M/s. Jayaraj Lodge, Perumbavoor. The private respondents, viz, 4 and 5 appear to have disputes in relation to the partnership which runs that establishment. That is a different matter. The application for renewal of FL-3 license, as made by the petitioner, is the application for a statutory order. Even if the competent authority is of the view that the applicant in the application cannot sustain such an application under the rules by himself and that the application has to be made jointly along with other persons, there cannot be any indefinite delay in expressing the decision on that issue. Every statutory authority has to act within a reasonable time frame having regard to the matter in issue. The stale mate created by failure to exercise such statutory right and public duty would only generate unnecessary litigations on the premise of the failure to exercise power. If I were to decide in this case, a lis between the petitioner and respondents 4 and 5 WP(C) 13798/2009 2 who have also filed counter affidavit, I would be stepping to adjudicate the civil dispute between those parties as a fore runner for a statutory authority to decide the statutory application for renewal of FL-3 license. This is clearly impermissible by recourse to the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. For the aforesaid reasons, it is ordered that the FL-3 license renewal application submitted by the petitioner as Ext.P3 shall be considered and disposed of by the competent authority in accordance with law, after giving the petitioner and respondents 4 and 5, an opportunity of hearing within a period of three weeks from now. Pending such consideration, the Abkari officers will ensure that the establishment does not function and the stock alloted to the said establishment which is also covered by a mahazar is retained in the safe custody of the Abkari Officers in the premises of the establishment and is not sold off or otherwise dealt with unless the decision on the renewal application is rendered. It is clarified that all other issues are left open. THOTTATHIL B RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE lgk/15/6