2017 (8) TMI 1169 - HC - Indian Laws

Renewal of license - denial of renewal of license on the ground of location of liquor vend and also on the ground that licence is in the name of the 3rd additional respondent in Ext.P5 judgment viz., T.O. Abraham and there is no application submitted by the petitioners to change the licence in the name of he 2nd petitioner to the authority concerned - whether any manner of interference is warranted to Ext.P8 order passed by the 2nd respondent? - Held that - licensed premises in question is having a direct access from State Highway No.1, which is not at all disputed by the petitioners, even if there is no visibility as contended by the petitioners. Now turning to the contention of the respondents with respect to the bar room as per the licence, there is a categoric assertion made that, the approved bar room is situated at the entrance of the hotel, there is no contrary established facts to think otherwise. As regards transfer of license in the name of 2nd petitioner, since rule 19 of the Foreign Liquor Rules, 1953 mandates certain parameters in order to transfer licence, which is also apparently not undertaken by the petitioners. Therefore, taking into account the factual circumstances and reckoning the law it cannot be said that, Ext.P8 order passed by the 2nd respondent is suffering from any illegality, vice of arbitrariness or any other legal infirmities justifying interference of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Petition dismissed - decided against petitioner.

Summary

Issues:
Renewal of FL-11 license and quashing of Ext. P8 order.

Analysis:
The writ petition was filed by a company seeking to quash an order declining the renewal of its FL-11 license. The company owned and operated a hotel and had obtained FL-3 and FL-11 licenses in the past. The FL-11 license was not renewed due to disputes among the directors, leading to a legal battle. A previous judgment directed reconsideration of the renewal application, highlighting developments granting certain powers to the Managing Director. However, the renewal was again declined based on proximity to a State Highway and failure to follow license transfer procedures.

The judgment emphasized the legal provisions governing FL-3 and FL-11 licenses, stating that licenses are issued to hotels, not specific bar rooms. The distance criterion from the State Highway was crucial in determining license eligibility. The court rejected the petitioner's argument regarding the location of the bar room and upheld the decision to deny renewal based on the existing license holder's identity and failure to comply with transfer regulations.

In conclusion, the court found no legal basis to interfere with the order declining renewal of the FL-11 license. The judgment highlighted the importance of adherence to licensing rules and procedures, ultimately dismissing the writ petition.