JUDGMENT
The petitioner is an applicant for reclassification of the hotel before the first respondent. It is averred in the writ petition that the application is not being accepted for want of production of bar licence. It is submitted that the same is not required in the light of the dictum laid down in Ext.P2 judgment.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Solicitor General who submitted that a writ appeal has been filed against Ext.P2 judgment, as W.A No. 1912/2012 and the same is pending.
3. The issue whether such a pre condition is required to be imposed by the authorities concerned, has been considered by this Court in Ext.P2 judgment while considering the effect of Clause 8(f) of the revised guidelines. In para 5, this Court entered a finding as follows:
“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.”
Finally, this Court issued a direction to the respondents to consider the application of the petitioner therein without insisting for production of a bar licence. The said judgment has been followed in Ext.P3 also.
4. In the light of the declaration of law made by this Court in Exts.P2 and P3 judgments, the petitioner is also entitled for the grant of benefits.
Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to accept the application of the petitioner, conduct due inspection and related enquiries and complete the procedures within a period of three months. It is made clear that the same will be subject to the outcome of W.A No. 1912/2012. No costs.