2017 (8) TMI 468 - HC - Indian Laws

Grant of licence in the existing premises - sale of liquor - time within which all documents are to be produced - main grievance of the petitioners is that it is difficult for the petitioners, who have to re-locate their Restaurants, to submit applications with all the enclosures in such short time without having appropriate premises - Held that - this Court is of the view that no prejudice would be caused to the respondents, if the petitioners can be given time to produce all the relevant documents and permissions - petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner.

Summary

Issues:
Petition challenging the action of respondents in not considering license request under new rules.

Analysis:
The petitioners filed a writ petition seeking to declare the respondents' action as illegal and arbitrary for not considering their request for a license extension or a fresh license in the existing premises. The petitioners established their Restaurants and Bars in 2006 under valid permissions/licenses. The 1st respondent issued a Bar Policy for 2017-2022, requiring online registration for new licenses. The petitioners, located near highways, needed to re-locate due to a Supreme Court directive. They requested an extension or a fresh license, citing the short notice for registration. The main grievance was the impracticality of relocating and fulfilling conditions within the short timeframe provided.

The petitioners challenged the Gazette Notification fixing the registration deadline as highly impossible. They argued that the short period of six days was inadequate for relocation and compliance with the Rules. The petitioners contended that the actions of the 4th respondent were illegal and arbitrary. The counsel for the petitioners emphasized the need for a reasonable time frame to meet the conditions under the Rules.

The Advocate General representing the 1st respondent-State stated that applications could be filed online or in person by the deadline and that all required documents could be submitted within one month from the deadline. The Court considered the submissions and directed that the petitioners could file applications by the deadline and produce necessary documents within one month. The respondent authorities were instructed to process the applications promptly upon submission of all relevant documents, in accordance with the law.

The Court disposed of the writ petition with the direction allowing the petitioners to file applications by the specified date and submit required documents within a month. No costs were awarded, and any pending miscellaneous petitions were closed.