IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH MARCH 2010 / 26TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 25230 of 2009(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. P.J.ANTONY, PROPRIETOR, HOTEL HILL PALACE, ADIMALY. 2. K.P.VINODAN, S/O.GOPALAN, KUNNUMPURATH HOUSE, PAYYOLI P.O., KEEZHOOR, MELADY, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.T.A.SHAJI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, TAXES DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, CENTRAL ZONE, ERNAKULAM (ERSTWHILE DEPUTY EXCISE COMMISSIONER). 3. THE EXCISE COMMISSIONER, COMMISSIONERATE OF EXCISE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GP SRI.V.MANU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/03/2010, ALONG WITH WPC NO. 3170 OF 2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 25230 of 2009 APPENDIX EXHIBITS EXT.P1- TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 6.3.07 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER EXT.P2- TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 6.3.07 SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXT.P3- TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.CZ-3-1030/07 DATED 15.3.07 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE EXT.P4- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.XC6-7308/07 DATED 9.7.09 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXT.P5- TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(P)NO.44/07/TD DATED 13.3.07 EXT.P6- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.XC7-27668/07/R. Dis DATED 28.2.08 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT (TRUE COPY) P.A TO JUDGE ANTONY DOMINIC, J ------------------- W.P.(C)s.25230 & 3170/2009 -------------------- Dated this the 17th day of March, 2010 JUDGMENT Petitioner in W.P.(C).3170/2009 applied for permission to reconstitute the partnership deed of Hotel Sindhu Bar at Kodungallur. Petitioners in W.P.(C).25230/2009 applied for transfer of FL-3 licence. Both the requests were rejected by Ext.P5 in W.P.(C).3170/2009 and by Ext.P4 in W.P.(C). 25230/2009 relying on the amended Rule 19 of the Foreign Liquor Rules requiring two-star classification which was effected with effect from 1.4.2007. 2. In these writ petitions the contention raised by the petitioners is that they having made their applications long prior to the amendment to the Rules, their request should be considered with reference to the Rule as it stood on the date of their application. It is now informed that a similar contention was raised in W.A.544/2008 and a Full Bench of this Court has held that the date which is relevant to consider the request is the date of consideration and not the date of the application. It is W.P.(C).25230 &3170/09 2 also informed that following the said judgment of the Full Bench, W.A.1564/2009 and connected cases were also disposed of. 3. Thus the petitioners' application could have been considered only in terms of the Rule as it stood on the date of its consideration. If so, the request made by the petitioners was liable to be rejected, as they did not satisfy the two-star classification. Therefore, the impugned orders are liable to be upheld and the writ petitions are only to be dismissed. I do so. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs