Kerala High Court
M/S.Holiday Park vs The Member Secretlary(Hracc) on 30 August, 2012
Author: T.R. Ramachandran Nair
Bench: T.R.Ramachandran Nair
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2012/21ST BHADRA 1934
WP(C).No. 21124 of 2012 (M)
---------------------------
PETITIONER:
-----------------
M/S.HOLIDAY PARK, AGED 47 YEARS
PUDUKKAD JUNCTION THRISSUR DISTRICT 680301.
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, SRI. K.L.GEORGE,
S/O.LATE LAZAR
BY ADVS.SRI.C.C.THOMAS (SR.)
SRI.M.G.KARTHIKEYAN
SRI.NIREESH MATHEW
RESPONDENTS:
----------------------
1. THE MEMBER SECRETLARY(HRACC)
HOTEL RESTAURANT DIVISION,
MINISTRY OF TOURISM, CI, HUTMENTS,
DALHOUSIE ROAD, NEW DELHI 110011.
2. THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR
INDIA TOURISM, SOUTHERN REGIONAL OFFICE,
154, ANNA SALAI CHENNAI 600002
3. THE SECRETARY(TOURISM)
DEPARTMENT OF TOURISM,
GOVT.OF KERALA PARK VIEW,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695033
4. THE MANAGER
GOVT. OF INDIA TOURIST OFFICE,
WILLINGTON ISLAND COCHIN - 682009
5. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY,
TAXES(A)DEPARTMENT GOVT. SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695001
BY ADV. SRI.KOSHY GEORGE, SC, MATSYAFED
BY SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASG OF INDIA
BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SMT. M.T. SHEEBA
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 12-09-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
BP
WP(C).No. 21124 of 2012 (M)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS :
EXT.P1. PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER DATED 30-08-2012 SUBMITTED BEFORE
THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXT.P2. PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 16-08-2012 IN WPC NO
18630/2012 PASSED BY THIS
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL.
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE
BP
T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
W.P.(C). No.21124/2012-M
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dated this the 12th day of September, 2012
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner seeks for a direction to the respondents to accept the original of Ext.P1 application along with the documents and consider and pass orders on the same without insisting for production of bar licence. It is pointed out that even though the petitioner submitted the application in the office of the first respondent, it was directed to produce the copy of the bar licence also. Therefore, the application is returned. The contention raised by the petitioner is that the copy of bar licence is not required to be produced in the light of the exposition of law by this Court in a common Judgment, a copy of which is produced as Ext.P2.
2. A reading of the above Judgment shows that this Court considered the effect of clause 8 (f) of the revised guidelines for Classification/Re-classification of Hotels and held the view as follows:
"5. A reading of this provision shows that, where ever bar licence is prohibited for a hotel as per the local law, bar will not be mandatory for entertaining an application for classification of a hotel as sought for by the petitioner. In so far as the State of Kerala is concerned, the local law governing the grant of bar licence is the Abkari Act and the Rules framed thereunder. Rule 13(3) of the Foreign Liquor Rules specifies that licence may be issued by the Commissioner of Excise only to hotels which, among others, have at least four star W.P.(C). No.21124/2012 -:2:- classification. Therefore there is a prohibition against grant of bar licence to hotels which are not having 4 star classification and availability of Bar licence, if insisted is a condition, which is impossible of compliance. In such a case, in view of the language of clause 8(f) of the revised guidelines, the respondent could not have refused to entertain the application of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner does not possess bar licence. In that view of the matter, I am unable to uphold Ext.P2 order issued by the first respondent, rejecting the application of the petitioner for four star classification."
3. In the light of the above, there cannot be any insistence of production of a bar licence as a pre-condition for entertaining the application and for considering the matter on merits. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:
The petitioner will re-submit the application along with a certified copy of this Judgment and based on which the first respondent will take appropriate action as enjoined by law and will complete the processes required within a period of eight weeks and appropriate orders thereafter will be passed within a further period of one month. It is made clear that I have only considered the issue regarding want of production of bar licence. No costs.
(T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) ms