IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 8TH MARCH 2011 / 17TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 6866 of 2011(G) ----------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- KUNNATHUR MANA AYURVEDA HERITAGE & LUXURIES HOTEL,PUNNAYURKULAM, THRISSUR 679 561,REP.BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER SMT.NISHA E.D,AGED 4O YEARS. 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 COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, CENTRAL ZONE,ERNAKULAM. 4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, THRISSUR. 5. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF EXCISE, VATANAPPALLY, THRISSUR. BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.K.R.DEEPA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/03/2011, ALONG WITH WPC. NO.6870 OF 2011 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C). NOs. 6866 & 6870 OF 2011 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of March, 2011 JUDGMENT Since common issues involve in these Writ Petitions, they were heard jointly and are disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The petitioner in the former Writ Petition is a firm and they constructed a Heritage hotel as is obvious from Ext.P1 certificate. In the latter Writ Petition, the petitioner firm constructed a three star hotel as is obvious from Ext.P1 certificate. Based on the said certificates, the petitioners in these Writ Petitions submitted Ext.P2 application,in both Writ Petitions, for getting FL-3 licence in terms of Rule 13(3) of Foreign Liquor Rules (for short 'the Rules') before the second respondent. Ext.P2 application in the former Writ Petition was filed as early as on 11.2.2010 and Ext.P2 in the latter Writ Petition is dated 7.8.2010. It is on being aggrieved by the delay in the matter of disposal of the said applications that these Writ Petitions have been filed. 3. Admittedly, the respondents have received Ext.P2 applications referred above. When that be the position, there cannot be any doubt that W.P.(C) Nos.6866 & 6870/2011 2 the second respondent is duty bound to consider and pass orders on Ext.P2 applications, in both Writ Petitions, in accordance with the provisions. The second respondent is bound to consider the said applications, under orders of the first respondent, in terms of Rule 13 (3) of the Rules. Therefore, without making any observations as to the merits of the contentions raised in these Writ Petitions, they are disposed of with a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to consider Ext.P2 application (in both Writ Petitions), and pass orders thereon, expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) spc W.P.(C) Nos.6866 & 6870/2011 3 C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. JUDGMENT September, 2010 W.P.(C) Nos.6866 & 6870/2011 4