Kerala High Court
Reji K Varghese vs State Of Kerala on 27 January, 2026
WP(C) NO. 42858 OF 2023 1
2026:KER:7900
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.
TUESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 / 7TH MAGHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 42858 OF 2023
PETITIONER:
REJI K VARGHESE,
AGED 59 YEARS
S/O K.V.VARGHESE, MANAGING DIRECTOR, SAJ
LUCIA,M/S. KANICHAI HOTELS PVT. LTD.,TC 80/1134,
EAST FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,RESIDING AT TC
14/352, KANJIRAKATTU HOUSE, KUMARAPURAM,
TRIVANDRUM - 11, PIN - 695023
BY ADV SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY,TAXES (A) DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, MAHATMA GANDHI ROAD
JUNCTION, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695001
2 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY JOINT SECRETARY, TAXES (G)
DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, MAHATMA
GANDHI ROAD JUNCTION, PALAYAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
3 THE EXCISE COMMISSIONER,
OFFICE OF THE EXCISE COMMISSIONER, EXCISE HEAD
QUARTERS,NANDAVANAM,PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695001
4 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE,
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE,EAST
FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695023
WP(C) NO. 42858 OF 2023 2
2026:KER:7900
OTHER PRESENT:
SMT.DEVI SHRI R., GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 27.01.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 42858 OF 2023 3
2026:KER:7900
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is the Managing Director of the firm under the name and style M/s Kanichai Hotels Pvt. Ltd. The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P14 order whereby the claim of the petitioner for a refund of the proportionate licence fee is rejected. The petitioner contends that an amount of Rs.33,75,000/- was collected as a licence fee for the purpose of granting FL11 and FL3 licences for the year 2017-18, with Rs.29,05,000/- for the FL3 licence and Rs. 4,70,000/- for the FL-11 licence.
2. It is alleged that the FL3 licence granted to the petitioner was only on 01.07.2017, having a validity from 01.07.2017 to 31.03.2018. On 11.11.2017, without any prior notice, the hotel premises were sealed for want of a star classification. It is submitted that the petitioner made use of the licences FL11 and FL3 only for periods of 14 days and 151 days respectively, and hence he is entitled to claim a refund of the proportionate licence fee amounting to Rs.19,23,397.26/-. Petitioner also contended that the period when the lockdown was declared due to the COVID-19 pandemic should also be excluded. Likewise, the lockdown imposed WP(C) NO. 42858 OF 2023 4 2026:KER:7900 in Thiruvananthapuram city between 06.07.2020 and 14.08.2020 made it impossible for the petitioner to function during this period, entitling him to a refund.
3. The petitioner had earlier filed W.P.(C) No.17659 of 2022 for a declaration that he is entitled to a refund of the proportionate licence fee for all the non-operational periods. Through Ext.P9 judgment dated 01.06.2022, it was found that the benefit of the Government order dated 01.04.2022 applicable to all foreign liquor licence holders will be extended to the petitioner, and the claim for the year 2017 was declined on the grounds of delay and laches. Writ appeal No.867 of 2022 was filed against the said judgment, wherein the Division Bench found, as directed by the learned Single Judge, that the petitioner was entitled to get the benefit of the Government Order dated 01.04.2022, which was for the period from 24.04.2021 to 14.06.2021. Another claim made by the petitioner was also directed to be considered.
4. Based on the above, Exts.P11 and P12 orders were passed by the Excise Commissioner. Against those orders, the petitioner had approached the Government through Ext.P13. Through Ext.P14, the Government, by order dated 05.12.2022, WP(C) NO. 42858 OF 2023 5 2026:KER:7900 found that the petitioner is not entitled to the refund sought for and, accordingly, rejected the same, which is impugned in the writ petition.
5. The details of the petitioner's claim and the response of the respondents are tabulated hereunder:
Sl. Licenc Licen Licence Actual Days Licence Non- Reason Refund No e Year ce Validity Functioni Worke Fee Paid operational given by Deman . Type ng Period d (₹) Period / the ded (₹) Reason respondent 1 2017- FL-11 01-04-2017 01-04-2017 14 days 4,70,000 - - -
2018 to 31-03- to 14-04-
2018 2017
2 2017- FL-3 01-07-2017 01-07-2017 151 days 29,05,000 01-04-2017 to It is evident 19,23,397
2018 to 31-03- to 11-11- 30-06-2017 from Rules 13 .26 out of
2018 2017 (licence not and 14 of the the total
(limited issued); post Foreign 33,75,000
thereafter) 11-11-2017 Liquor Rules /-
sealing that the
licensee has
to pay the
full amount
of the fee for
the financial
year, and
there is no
provision to
realise
proportionat
e rental for
issuing a
license under
Rule 13.
3 2020- FL-3 31-05-2020 Excluding 30,00,000 06-07-2020 to Due to 3,86,401
2021 to 31-03- lockdown/s 14-08-2020 lockdown
2021 uspension lockdown + 8 restrictions
days declared by
suspension the District
collector, and
the same was
withdrawn
by the Ext. P5
order. The
FL3 license
was
suspended
for the
WP(C) NO. 42858 OF 2023 6
2026:KER:7900
unauthorised
sale of liquor
for 8 days.
4 2021- FL-3 10-05-2021 After lifting 30,00,000 24-04-2021 to License fee 6,16,429
2022 to 31-03- lockdown 14-06-2021 for 52 days
2022 (delayed from
renewal + 24.04.2021 to
lockdown) 78 14.06.2021
days (52 days due to
lockdown +23 lockdown
days from was adjusted
beginning of by the 4th
year to date of respondent
imposition of towards the
lockdown) license fee at
the time of
renewal for
2023-24.
6. A counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the 1 st respondent stating that the petitioner was granted an FL11 licence for the year 2017-18, and later, in accordance with the policy of the Government and on the application submitted by the petitioner, he was granted an FL3 licence for the same premises for which he paid Rs.29,05,000/- as annual rent for the year 2017-18. Later, the validity of the star classification awarded to the hotel expired on 11.11.2017, and therefore, the petitioner was not eligible to run the FL3 licence as per Rule 13(3) and 13(B) of the Foreign Liquor Rules, and accordingly, the Circle Inspector of Excise, Thiruvananthapuram, closed down the bar on the same day.
7. In the counter affidavit, the 1st respondent relied on WP(C) NO. 42858 OF 2023 7 2026:KER:7900 Rule 14 and 14(A) of Foreign Liquor Rules stating that if any licence under Rule 13 is granted in the course of a financial year, the full annual fee has to be paid and the licence shall expire at the end of the financial year. Likewise, Rule 14(A) also states that the licensee has to pay the full annual fee for the financial year, and there is no provision to realise the proportionate rental for issuing a licence under Rule 13 of the Foreign Liquor Rules, and since the amount remitted for the renewal of the FL3/FL11 licences is a fixed fee, the request for demand cannot be accepted. It is also stated that the petitioner could not operate the FL3 licence from 06.06.2020 to 14.08.2020 due to lockdown restrictions. However, the same was withdrawn later. Due to the second phase of the COVID-19 lockdown, the petitioner could not operate the bar hotel from 24.04.2021 to 14.06.2021.
8. It is also stated that the FL3 licence granted to the petitioner was suspended as per proceedings dated 23.03.2021, consequent to the registration of the Abkari crime alleging unauthorised sale of liquor by violating Foreign Liquor Rules and Covid-19 guidelines. Later, the suspension was revoked on 03.05.2021 after the petitioner remitted the fine. It is also stated WP(C) NO. 42858 OF 2023 8 2026:KER:7900 that the proportionate licence fee for 52 days from 24.04.2021 to 14.06.2021, during which the hotels were not functioning due to Covid-19 lockdown restrictions, was subsequently adjusted towards the licence fee at the time of the renewal of the FL3 licence for the year 2023-2024. The proportionate rental for the period the petitioner's bar hotel remained closed due to Covid-19 lockdown restrictions during 2020-21 and 2021-22 was duly adjusted by the 4th respondent, and therefore, he is not entitled to get any other amount. The Government has considered all aspects of the matter and, relying on Rule 36 of the Foreign Liquor Rules, states that on the Excise Commissioner revoking the licence, a proportionate part of the fee paid by the licence shall be refunded, and in all other cases, the licensee has to pay the full annual fee for the financial year, and there is no provision to realise the proportionate rental.
9. It is submitted that in this case, the licence has not been revoked by the Excise Commissioner. It is also stated that the petitioner has no unfettered right to vend liquor, and the State has the exclusive power to impose reasonable restrictions for the safety of the general public. Since the State has made laws for imposing reasonable restrictions in the interest of the general WP(C) NO. 42858 OF 2023 9 2026:KER:7900 public, none of the rights of the petitioner are affected. The licence fee once remitted for the FL3 licence is not refundable fully or partially on account of any reason, like the licence having been granted in the course of the financial year or the licence remaining closed for any period during the currency of the licence or for whatsoever reasons.
10. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader and going through the undisputed facts arising in this case and the impact of the Foreign Liquor Rules stated above, the petitioner's claim has to be rejected for more reasons than one. As rightly contended by the State, there is no provision for refunding the licence fee except when the licence fee is revoked by the Excise Commissioner or, at most, in cases where the petitioner was prevented from carrying on the business for no reasons attributable to him. In the instant case, the petitioner's hotel lost the star classification, and the licence was suspended following the registration of an Abkari case. For the period in which the hotel remains closed down due to the lockdown, the licence fee for that period was adjusted towards the renewal for the succeeding years. However, for the period between WP(C) NO. 42858 OF 2023 10 2026:KER:7900
06.07.2020 and 14.08.2020, during which a local lockdown was imposed in Thiruvananthapuram for a period of 39 days, the petitioner could not function for reasons not attributable to him, and therefore it is directed that the proportionate licence fee for the said period shall be adjusted towards the licence fee payable in future, as this period has to be treated at par with the lockdown period. Except for the above, no other illegality can be found in Ext.P14 passed by the Government, which considered all the relevant aspects.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.
JUDGE
Anu
WP(C) NO. 42858 OF 2023 11
2026:KER:7900
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 42858 OF 2023
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE EXT P1 FL11 LICENCE
NO. 82/2017-18/TVPM ISSUED TO THE
APPELLANT ON 31.03.2017 HAVING VALIDITY FROM 01.04.2017 TO 31.03.2018 Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE FL3 LICENSE NO.
15/2017-18/TVPM ISSUED TO THE
PETITIONER ON 30.06.2017
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE
PETITIONER DATED 30/09/2018 TO THE SAID EFFECT TO THE RESPONDENT REQUESTING FOR REFUND OF THE SAID AMOUNTS Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF FL3 LICENSE WITH NO.
15/2020-21/TVPM ISSUED TO PETITIONER FOR YEAR 2020-21, DATED 31.05.2020.
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR & CHAIRPERSON, DISTRICT DISASTER MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DDMA/01/2020/COVID/CZ-41 DATED 14.08.2020 Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED 01.04.2022 BEARING NO. GO (RT) NO.
242/2022/TAXES ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION ISSUED THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENT DATED 05/05/2022.
Exhibit P8 A TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 05/05/2022 ISSUED BY PETITIONER TO RESPONDENT Exhibit P9 A TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 01/06/2022 IN W.P.(C) NO. 17659/2022 OF THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA Exhibit P10 A TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 21/07/2022 ISSUED BY THE DIVISION BENCH OF THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA IN WA NO.
867/2022Exhibit P11 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.
EDOTVM/1458/2022-T3 DATED 20/10/2022
ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO 4TH
RESPONDENT
WP(C) NO. 42858 OF 2023 12
2026:KER:7900
Exhibit P12 A TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.
EXC/4673/2022-XC7 DATED 07/11/2022
ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit P13 A TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 21/11/2022 FILED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit P14 A TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 05/12/2022 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT STATING REJECTION OF EXT. P3 & 7 REPRESENTATIONS AND PARTLY ALLOWING EXT. P8 REPRESENTATION RESPONDENT EXHIBITS EXHIBIT R1 (A) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF SUSPENSION DATED 23.03.2021 EXHIBIT R1 (B) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 03.05.2021 REVOKING THE SUSPENSION