Case Note & Summary
The appeals before the Supreme Court arose from a common judgment of the Kerala High Court regarding the non-grant of FL-3 Licences under the Foreign Liquor Rules framed under the Akbari Act. The applicant, B.Six Holiday Resorts (P) Ltd., sought a licence for its restaurant classified by the Ministry of Tourism. After multiple rejections based on various grounds, including a policy not to grant new licences, the High Court directed the Excise Commissioner to reconsider the application based on the rules in effect at the time of the application. The State challenged this direction, arguing that applications should be considered under the rules in force at the time of consideration. The Supreme Court addressed two main legal questions: the applicable rules for licence consideration and the validity of the amendment to Rule 13(3). The court concluded that applications should be evaluated based on the rules at the time of consideration, rejecting the notion of vested rights in liquor licensing. It also upheld the amendment prohibiting new licences, affirming that it did not nullify existing licences and was within the State's rule-making authority. The appeals by the State were allowed in part, while those by the applicants were dismissed, with clarifications regarding existing licences and future applications.
Headnote
A) Administrative Law - Licensing Applications - Consideration of Applications - Foreign Liquor Rules, 2002, Rule 13(3) - The court held that applications for FL-3 licences should be considered based on the rules in force at the time of consideration, not the application date, as no vested rights exist for applicants in liquor licensing. This principle aligns with the State's exclusive privilege in liquor trade and public interest considerations (Paras 8-15). B) Administrative Law - Amendment Validity - Foreign Liquor Rules, 2002, Rule 13(3) - The court upheld the validity of the amendment prohibiting new FL-3 licences, stating it does not nullify existing licences and serves the public interest by allowing the State to reassess its excise policy. The amendment was deemed valid and not beyond the rule-making power of the State (Paras 16-18).
Issue of Consideration
Whether an application for grant of FL-3 Licence should be considered with reference to the Rules as they existed when the application was made or in accordance with the Rules in force on the date of consideration? Whether the amendment to Rule 13(3) of Foreign Liquor Rules substituting the last proviso is valid?
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals filed by the State in part and dismissed the appeals filed by the applicants for licences. It clarified that any licences granted during the litigation would not be affected, and any interim orders would remain in effect until the end of the current excise year. The court emphasized that future applications should be considered in accordance with the law.
Law Points
- Foreign Liquor Rules
- FL-3 Licence
- retrospective effect
- vested rights
- public interest
- administrative discretion
