Landmark Near Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium v. State Of Kerala

JUDGMENT

FL-3 licence granted to the petitioner firm was revoked by Ext.P2 order of the Government on the ground that the assignor of the property was liable for abkari dues. Ext.P2 order was the subject matter of W.A No. 2793 of 2007 disposed of by Ext.P4 judgment wherein it is held as follows:-

“6. ……..It is clarified that even after the judgment, if there is any liability, remaining, for the respondent's husband, the licence need be issued only on clearing the same. In other words, the licence need not be issued after receiving indemnity bond from the respondent.”

2. Paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent concedes the fact that the assignor has remitted the entire dues by availing AMNESTY Scheme however under protest. Nevertheless, FL-3 licence has not been reissued in favour of the petitioner firm by Ext.P10 order of the Government. The new reason now reflected in the order is that there is a vigilance case pending with regard to the reconstitution of another partnership firm.

3. Neither the Managing Partner of the petitioner firm nor the existing partners of the reconstituted firm which conducts Aramana Bar are accused in the vigilance case. The partnership firm which conducts Aramana Bar was reconstituted on the death of one partner and three others were inducted in place of yet another partner who retired. The partner who retired by name T.K Sajeevan is the accused along with two others in the vigilance case. No doubt the Managing Partner of the petitioner firm is also now the Managing Partner of the reconstituted firm which conducts Aramana Bar. But the same person is also the Managing Partner of two other partnership firms enjoying the privilege to vend Foreign Liquor.

4. The reason stated in Ext.P10 order for not reissuing licence in favour of the petitioner firm cannot be sustained. This is particularly so in the wake of Ext.P4 judgment in W.A No. 2793 of 2007 which permits re-issuance of licence on clearing the liability of the assignor of the property. Ext.P10 is therefore quashed. Respondents 1 and 2 are directed to reconsider the re-issue of licence to the petitioner firm within a period of one month. Needless to mention that the law prevailing as on the date of Ext.P2 revocation order or Ext.P10 order should govern the fresh grant in the light of the judgment of the Division Bench in W.P (C) No. 35243 of 2011.

The writ petition is disposed of as above.