IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 4TH APRIL 2011 / 14TH CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 10272 of 2011(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SANTHA MOHAN, HOLDER OF FL3 LICENSE NO.KT 23/10-11, HOTEL PANKAJ, THALAYOLAPARAMBU, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.VIJAYAMOHANAN SRI.P.MOHANDAS (ERNAKULAM) SRI.ANOOP.V.NAIR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, TAXES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-1. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, COMMISSIONERATE OF EXCISE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-33. 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, EXCISE DIVISION OFFICE, KOTTAYAM, PIN-686 001. 4. K.S.SAJUMON, SANTHA BHAVANAM, THALAYOLAPARAMBU P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN-686 605. GOVT. PLEADER SRI.BIJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/04/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.10272 of 2011 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of April, 2011 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Issue involved in this writ petition pertains to renewal of a Bar licence (FL-3 licence) sanctioned to a Hotel situated at Thalayolaparambu in Kottayam District. The petitioner, who is a lady aged 65 years, claims to be the owner of the property and building wherein the Hotel is functioning. She had executed Ext.P1 Power of Attorney in favour of her younger brother, the 4th respondent herein, for management of various properties belonging to her. The recitals in Ext.P1 includes a clause authorising the 4th respondent to start a Hotel or Restaurant and to apply for a Bar licence in the name of the attorney and to do all necessary acts for obtaining such licence and for conducting the Bar Hotel. It is evident that by virtue of the Power of Attorney the Bar licence was obtained in the name of the 4th respondent as Power of Attorney of the petitioner, from the year 1995 onwards, which was seen renewed periodically till 31.3.2011. The name of the licensee shown in Ext.P2 licence is as “Sri.K.S.Sajumon, Santha Bhavanam House, Thalayolaparambu, Vaikom Taluk, Kottayam District (P.A.Holder of Santha Mohan for Hotel Pankaj, Thalayolaparambu, Kottayam dist.”. W.P.(C).10272/11 -2- 2. It is the case of the petitioner that the Power of Attorney executed in favour of the 4th respondent was cancelled through Ext.P4, dt.12.11.2010. Subsequently the petitioner had approached the 2nd respondent for issuing a duplicate copy of the licence, which was allegedly taken away by the 4th respondent, after deleting the name of the 4th respondent from the licence. The petitioner had also made a request to issue the renewed licence in her name, by further authorising two other brothers of her, namely Sri.Sasidharan Nair and Sri.Unnikrishnan. It is evident from Ext.P6 that the 3rd respondent had recommended to the 2nd respondent for issuing duplicate licence. From Ext.P5 it is evident that after conducting due verification, the 3rd respondent had given authorisation of the newly constituted attorneys of the petitioner to obtain permits and to purchase Foreign Liquor, on behalf of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, she had produced all documents issued by various authorities along with such applications to show that she is the absolute owner in possession of the property and that she was conducting the business by obtaining various permissions and licences in her name. It is further evident from Ext.P7 that the 2nd respondent had accorded sanction to the 3rd respondent to issue duplicate copy of the licence to the petitioner with notice to all parties of the Hotel, in compliance of the relevant rules. W.P.(C).10272/11 -3- 3. It is evident from Ext.P8 that, pursuant to Ext.P7 the 4th respondent was issued with notice and his objections were considered by the 3rd respondent, in the matter of issuing duplicate copy of the licence. 4. In the meanwhile, in view of expiry of the licence on 31.3.2011, the petitioner submitted Ext.P9 application supported by all documents for renewal of the licence. Grievance of the petitioner is that inspite of expiry of the licence on 31.3.2011, the respondents 2 and 3 are not taking any effective steps for renewing the licence and also for issuing duplicate copy of the existing licence, after deleting the name of the 4th respondent from the document in question. Hence the petitioner seeks appropriate direction from this court. 5. Heard; learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of respondents 1 to 3. It is submitted that the 4th respondent had raised objections regarding requests made by the petitioner. It is further contended that Ext.P2 licence was issued in the name of the 4th respondent since the terms of the Power of Attorney had authorised the 4th respondent to obtain licence in his name. 6. While considering the crux of the dispute, this court take note of the fact that Ext.P2 licence was issued only by virtue of the Power of Attorney executed by the petitioner and that W.P.(C).10272/11 -4- there is specific mention in Ext.P2 that the licence was issued to the 4th respondent as Power of Attorney holder of the petitioner. Further it is evident that the petitioner had revoked the Power of Attorney. The fact that the property and building belongs to the petitioner and various authorisations and permissions with respect to conduct of business was obtained only in her name, could not be omitted notice. 7. However, since the matter is now in seizin of the competent authority, I am not expressing any opinion regarding entitlement of the petitioner to get the licence renewed as well as to get the other reliefs sought for before the respondents 2 and 3. It is evident that the Bar Hotel could not be functioned after 31.3.2011 since the licence was not renewed. It is also evident that the petitioner had applied for renewal within the time stipulated. Under such circumstances, I am of the view that interest of justice will be served if a direction is issued to the authority concerned to take a decision on the request for renewal of bar licence within a time frame. 8. It is pointed out by Dr.K.P. Satheesan, learned counsel for petitioner that as per circular issued by the 2nd respondent vide No.C6-5975/2009 dt.14.3.2011, the 3rd respondent is authorised to renew the licence. Going by the circular, it is clear that the 3rd respondent has to take a decision on the question of W.P.(C).10272/11 -5- renewal of the licence, as applied by the petitioner. 9. In the result the writ petition is disposed of directing the 3rd respondent to consider Ext.P9 application submitted by the petitioner for renewal of FL-3 licence, if necessary after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as to the 4th respondent, as early as possible, at any rate, within a period of 5 (five) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. 10. The 3rd respondent is also directed to take a decision on the application for issuing duplicate copy of the existing licence, after deleting name of the 4th respondent, as requested by the petitioner, in view of Ext.P7, at the earliest possible, at any rate within 3 (three) weeks from he date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. 11. The 3rd respondent will also consider the question of granting temporary licence for running the Bar Hotel, pending final decision regarding renewal of the licence. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb