IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND SEPTEMBER 2010 / 31ST BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 25884 of 2010(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- JOHN KALLAT, JOINT MANAGING PARTNER, FL-3 LICENSE, HOTEL SAMUDRA, SREEKANTAPURAM, KANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE COMMISSIONR OF EXCISE, COMMISSIONERATE OF EXCISE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONR OF EXCISE, KANNUR. ADDL.3. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF TAXES, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIATE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. (IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL RESPONDENT NO.3 AS PER ORDER DATED 15.9.2010 IN I.A.NO.12639 OF 2010. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.V.MANU FOR R1 TO 4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON ON 22/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN W.P.(C) No.25886 of 2010 EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE LICENCE NO.1/90-91 VALID UPTO 31.3.2011 EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 26.3.2010 EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION GIVE ALONG WITH PLAN. EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER O.XC1-8436/09/DT. 23.9.2009 EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ENTRY MADE IN THE VISITORS BOOK DT. 14.8.2010. ///TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 25884 of 2010 ------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of September, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is the Managing Partner of 'Hotel Samudra' which is licensed to sell Indian made Foreign Liquor on the strength of FL-3 License originally granted in the year 1990 and renewed from time to time. The last of the renewals was for the period commencing from 1.4.2010 and ending with 31.3.2011, as can be seen from the endorsement on Ext.P1. The petitioner has also paid the fee of Rs.22,75,000/- for such renewal. 2. Even before the licence was renewed for the current year, the petitioner had applied to the Excise Commissioner for making alterations to the Hotel building. Later, after the licence was renewed for the current year, he submitted Ext.P3 application dated 4.8.2009 to the Excise Commissioner seeking approval for the changes/alterations to the building, to put up additional constructions and to make renovations. On that application, the Excise Commissioner passed Ext.P4 order dated 23.9.2009 according sanction to make additions/alterations as stated in the application and noted in the proposed plan of the licensed premises. Since the W.P.(C) No.25884 of 2010 2 petitioner could not complete the renovation work within the period of six months stipulated in Ext.P4, he moved an application seeking enlargement of time, which was duly recommended by the Deputy Commissioner of Excise, Kannur. It is submitted that a final order has not yet been passed on that application. 2. While matters stood thus, the Excise Commissioner inspected the petitioner's hotel on 14.8.2010 accompanied by the Deputy Commissioner of Excise. He thereafter made the following endorsement on the Excise Inspection Book. “Visited. The DC(E) accompanied me. Entire ground floor is used as bar. The side rooms are incomplete. The alteration is incomplete. Let them complete the alteration. Until such time the bar licence is suspended. The licensee has only licence for serving liquor in bar room.” This writ petition was thereupon filed on 17.8.2010 challenging the entry in the Excise Inspection Book, whereby the petitioner's licence was suspended. Though initially an interim order of stay was granted by this Court on 17.8.2010, the order of stay was vacated by order passed on 20.8.2010. Shortly thereafter, by Ext.P7 order dated 29.8.2010, the Excise Commissioner directed that the suspension of the licence will prevail until the renovation work is completed. It was W.P.(C) No.25884 of 2010 3 observed that the petitioner can approach the Excise Commissioner for revocation of the suspension of FL-3 licence of the hotel, after the completion and approval of the permitted renovation works. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has filed Ext.P9 revision before the Government. 3. Though a large number of contentions are raised in the writ petition and the respondents have filed a counter affidavit justifying their action, I am of the opinion that as the petitioner has invoked a remedy available to him under law, the Government should consider the issue and take an appropriate decision in the matter. It is also brought to my notice that the revision petition is posted to hearing on 29.9.2010. The learned Government Pleader submitted that the maintainability of Ext.P9 revision petition is doubtful and that the Government will have to consider that aspect also while taking a decision on the revision petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that after the order of suspension was passed, the work has progressed and that the building is in such a situation that a bar hotel can be conveniently run therein. In my opinion, these are all matters which the Government will have to consider while resolving the controversy. W.P.(C) No.25884 of 2010 4 4. In such circumstances, I dispose of the writ petition with the following directions:- The Government shall hear the petitioner on Ext.P9 revision petition and take an appropriate decision thereon expeditiously and in any event, within two weeks from 29.9.2010. It will be open to the petitioner to put forward all his contentions before the Government and if necessary, to supplement Ext.P9 revision petition by filing an appropriate representation. While considering the revision petition, the Government shall also take into account the views expressed by the Excise Commissioner. The Government shall take a decision in the matter uninfluenced by the observations made by this Court in the order passed on 20.8.2010 vacating the order of stay earlier granted and shall, after orders are passed, communicate a copy thereof to the petitioner. P.N.RAVINDRAN, Judge. nj.