STATE OF KERALA & ORS. versus M/S. PALAKKAD HERITAGE HOTELS

Citation: [2017] 3 S.C.R. 239 · Decided: 13-04-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPAK MISRA · Disposal: Case Partly allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2017] 3 S.C.R. 239 
STATE OF KERALA & ORS. 
v. 
MIS. PALAKKAD HERITAGE HOTELS 
(Civil Appeal No. 5204of2017) 
APRIL 13, 2017 
[DIPAK MISRA AND A. M. KllANWILKAR, JJ,) 
ForeiJ?,11 Liquor Rules, 1974: 
Application for grant of Beer/Wine Bar FL-11 Licence - For 
its hotel which was 70 meters from the nearest objectionable 
institution - Excise Commissioner recommended grant of sanction 
for the Licence as per the Rules '- While the said recommendation 
was pending 'consideralion, Liquor Rules amended on 181" April, 
2012 prescribing the minimum distanceji-uin objectionable institution· 
A 
B 
c 
as 200 meters - Jn view of the amendme/11 of the Rules, the application · 0 
was rejected - Writ pelition by the applicant cha/lengi11g the decisio11 
as also the amendment of lhe Rules - Allowed by Single Judge of 
High Court holding that since the order sanctioning the grant of 
licence was prior to amendment, application could nol have been 
rejected on the basis of the amended Rules - Jn writ appeal as well 
as in Review, order of Single Judge was affirmed - On appeal, 
held: Since the final decision as to grant of the Licence was taken 
after the Rule was amended, the applica1io11 was required to be 
considered keeping in view the amended provision - Matter 
remanded to the Single Judge of High Court to decide afresh on 
other issues. 
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court 
E 
F 
HELD: 1.1 The 1>rocessi11g of the apj>licalion for grant of 
licence commences from the dale of ap1>licalion. The final 
decision 011 the 1>roposal is re11uired to be taken by the State 
Government. The date 011 which a formal, final decisio11, is taken 
G 
by the competent authority, alone, would be the relevant date. 
The recommendation made by the subordinate authority, even if 
significant for taking a formal decision by the competent authority, 
will be of no avail. [Para 11J[248-F-G] 
239 
H 
240 
A 
8 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017) 3 S.C.R. 
1.2 In the present case, the Single Judge of High Court 
has assumed the date on which recommendation was made by 
the Excise Commissioner i.e. 28'h M3:rch, 2012, as the relevant 
date. That assumption is untenable. ]<or, that was not the date on 
which the final decision was t:tken by the competent authority. 
Whereas, before a final decision could be taken by the competent 
authority on the a1)plication submitted by the Respondent, the 
Foreign Liquor Rules were amended on 181h April, 2012. The 
ap1>lication submitted by the Respondent for grant of licence, 
unquestionably, must be treated as pending and under 
consideration on this date. [Para 12)1248-JI; 249-A-B] 
1.3 The a1)plication for grant of J<'L-11 licence submitted by 
the Respondent was required to be considered by the com11etent 
authority keeping in mind the amended provisions which came 
·into force w.e.f. 18'h April, 2012. That is precisely what has been 
done by the Excise Commissioner, as can be discerned from his 
speaking order dated 5'h June, 2012, for invoking the restriction 
of distance of 200 metres from the objectionable site. [Para 
13](249-C-D) 
2. Since the Single Judge of the High Court proceeded to 
decide the writ petition filed by the Respondent merely by 
referring to the pronouncement of the Division Bench of the same · 
High Court in the case of *Ka/hula /lo/els mu/ Resorts, coupled 
with the fact that the Respondent had asked for a wider relief to 
declare the amendment of 18'h April, 2012 as void to the extent it 
has introduced the restriction of distance of 200 meters from 
objectionable institutions for getting J<'L-11 licence, it would be 
appropriate to relegate the parties before the Single Judge to 
decide the writ petition afresh, keeping in mind the settled legal 
position. [Para 14)(249-E-F) 
*Kallada Hvlels and Resvrls vs. Slate of Kera/a 2012 
(2) KLT 167; State vf Kera/a and Ors. v. MP. Shiju 
2014 (2) KUC 343 (DB); The Kera/a Bar Hotels 
Associalion & Am: V. State of Kera/a & Ors. [2015] 
SCR 256: AIR 2016 SC 163 - referred to. 
State of Keralp & Am: v. B.6 Holidays Resorts Pvt. Lid. 
[20101 3 SCR 1 : 2010 (5) sec 186 - distinguished. 
STATE OF KERALA & ORS. v. M/S. PALAKKAD HERITAGE 
241 
HOTELS 
Case J,aw Reference 
A 
2012(2) KLT 167 
2014 (2) KBC 343 (Dll) 
[2015) SCR 256 
[2010) 3 SCR 1 
. referred to 
referred to 
referred to 
Para4 
Para6 
Para7 
distinguished Para 10 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5204 
of2017. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 12.08.2014 of
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.