IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 25230 of 2009(W)
1. P.J.ANTONY, PROPRIETOR,
... Petitioner
2. K.P.VINODAN, S/O.GOPALAN,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
2. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE,
3. THE EXCISE COMMISSIONER,
For Petitioner :SRI.T.A.SHAJI
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :17/03/2010
O R D E R
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