IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN TUESDAY, THE 18TH JANUARY 2011 / 28TH POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 1549 of 2011(P) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M/S. KALLADA HOLIDAY INN., ALOOR P.O., IRINJALAKKUDA, THRISSUR DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, SMT. K.T.SINDHU. BY ADV. SRI.C.C.THOMAS, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.M.G.KARTHIKEYAN SRI.NIREESH MATHEW SRI.SAJI SANKARAN NAIR 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 JOINT EXCISE COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL ZONE, ERNAKULAM. 4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, THRISSUR. 5. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF EXCISE, EXCISE CIRCLE OFFICE, IRINJALAKKUDA, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.K.R.DEEPA. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N. RAVINDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.1549 of 2011 ------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of January, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a partnership firm represented by its Managing Partner. The Managing Partner of the petitioner firm filed Ext.P2 application dated 17.4.2010 for the grant of an FL-3 licence. That application was rejected by Ext.P9 order dated 16.9.2010 on the short ground that the husband of the Managing Partner has been convicted in a criminal case, and therefore, it would not be desirable to issue an FL-3 licence to the firm of which the convict's wife is the Managing Partner. The petitioner successfully challenged that order by filing W.P.(C) No.29365 of 2010. By Ext.P10 judgment delivered on 22.11.2010, this Court held that as the judgment of conviction and sentence was set aside and the husband of the Managing Partner of the firm was acquitted, the stand taken by the Excise Commissioner cannot be sustained. This Court accordingly directed the Excise Commissioner to reconsider the application for FL-3 licence. The Excise Commissioner thereafter passed Ext.P11 order dated 1.1.2011 once again rejecting the application for FL-3 licence. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has filed Ext.P12 revision petition under rule 40 of the Foreign Liquor Rules before the State Government. 2. Though in this writ petition, the petitioner has W.P.(C) No.1549 of 2011 2 challenged Ext.P11 order passed by the Excise Commissioner, when the writ petition came up for admission-hearing today, the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that reserving liberty with the petitioner to challenge Ext.P11 order at a later stage, this writ petition may be disposed of with a direction to the first respondent to consider Ext.P12 revision petition within a time limit to be fixed by this Court. 3. Rule 40 of the Foreign Liquor Rules, 1972 empowers the Government to revise orders passed by the Excise Commissioner. Since the petitioner has invoked a remedy available to him under law, I am of the opinion that the Government should consider Ext.P12 revision and pass orders thereon expeditiously. I, accordingly, dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the first respondent to consider Ext.P12 revision and pass orders thereon expeditiously and in any event, within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, after notice to and affording the petitioner a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The first respondent shall also ascertain the views of the Excise Commissioner while taking a decision in the matter. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the decision taken by the Government, it will be open W.P.(C) No.1549 of 2011 3 to him to challenge it and Ext.P11 in other appropriate proceedings. The contentions of the petitioner on the merits are kept open. P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. nj.