IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 1ST FEBRUARY 2011 / 12TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 2450 of 2011(E) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ POOJA RESIDENCY, KALADY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, REP.BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, SRI.K.D.BABY, AGED 59 YEARS, S/O.LATE DEVASSY. BY SRI.C.C.THOMAS, SENIOR ADVOCATE, BY ADV. SRI.NIREESH MATHEW, 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 JOINT EXCISE COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL ZONE, ERNAKULAM. 4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, ERNAKULAM. 5. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF EXCISE, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. R1 TO R5 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. K.R. DEEPA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/02/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C). NO.2450 OF 2011 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of February, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner firm has submitted Ext.P1 application for issuance of FL-3 licence under Rule 13(3) of the Foreign Liquor Rules (for short 'the Rules') r/w 13A thereunder before the second respondent. The said application was rejected by the second respondent as per Ext.P2 under Rule 13A of the Rules. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with Ext.P2, the petitioner has preferred Ext.P4 revision petition before the Government under Rule 40 of the Rules. 2. In view of the order I propose to pass in this Writ Petition I do not think it necessary to delve into the facts any further. Admittedly, Ext.P4 revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Rule 40 of the Rules and it is still pending before the Government. On account of the said position obtained in this case, this Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the first respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P4 revision petition submitted by the petitioner expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) spc W.P.(C) NO. 2 C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. JUDGMENT September, 2010 W.P.(C) NO. 3