State of Kerala vs Mannuthy Mayura Inn

Antony Dominic, J.—This appeal is filed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge allowing W.P.(C)No.13194 of 2013 filed by the respondents herein. The respondents were having a hotel by name Mayura. On account of the work for the development of the NH, that hotel was closed and FL3 licence of the hotel was surrendered in the year 2010.

Subsequently, they constructed a new hotel by name ''Mayura Inn'' and on 15/10/2010, submitted Ext.P2 application for obtaining a FL3 licence to that hotel. They also submitted Ext.P3 application dated 17/7/2012 requesting for shifting the FL3 licence that was surrendered to the newly constructed hotel. They again submitted Ext.P4 application dated 10/8/2012 requesting to grant the prayer either in Ext.P2 or in Ext.P3.

Thereafter complaining that the applications were not considered, they approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.19757 of 2012. That Writ Petition was disposed of by Ext.P6 order holding that their case was covered by the judgment of this Court in 2012 (3) KHC 653 (Ker) and directing that the petitioner will also be entitled to the benefit of that judgment. In spite of it, orders were not passed, which led to he filing of Contempt Case No.5 of 2013.

Thereupon, Ext.P8 order was passed on 21/12/2012, whereby the second appellant rejected the application on the ground that the applicant did not have the legal authority to apply for the FL3 licence sought for as per the partnership deed of Mayura Inn, Mannuthy. That order was again challenged in W.P.(C)No.1401 of 2013 which resulted in Ext.P11 judgment. By that judgment the Writ Petition was allowed and quashing Ext.P8, this Court directed reconsideration of Ext.P4 and to pass fresh orders thereon.

In the purported compliance of that order Ext.P12 order dated 20/5/2013 has been passed by the 2nd appellant holding that there is no Rule at present to grant new FL3 licence. He further says that: "Thus, the judgment read as 3rd above of the Hon''ble High Court cannot be considered as per the existing rule and is hereby complied with." Challenging Ext.P12, the Writ Petition was filed by the respondents, which was allowed by the impugned judgment. In the judgment the learned Single Judge expressed his strong displeasure about the conduct of the 2nd appellant and the manner in which he has passed Ext.P12 and held that the law on the date of passing Ext.P8 order dated 21/12/2012 should be the law that is to be applied and not the law as on the date of the Ext.P12. It is this judgment which is under challenge before us.

We heard the learned Government Pleader for the appellants and the learned counsel for the respondents also.

From the facts which we have noticed, it can be seen that, the respondents had to approach this Court thrice in order to get a FL3 licence. In each of the orders passed by the second appellant, he has invented new reasons for defeating the claims of the respondents and finally he has invented a curious reason that, as on the date of Ext.P12 order, rule does not permit the grant of FL.3 licence to the respondents. If that logic is accepted, it will be always open to the second appellant to pass untenable orders and in spite of its quashing by this Court, to pass new and fresh untenable orders again and again and by that process to defeat legal rights of the parties. Such a conduct, which has been adopted in this case, cannot be countenanced by this Court. It was for that reason the learned Single Judge held that the law as on the date of Ext.P8 and not what was prevailing on the date of Ext.P12 is to be applied and order should be passed on that basis. We do not find any reason to disagree with the view taken by the learned Single Judge.

The learned Single Judge has already expressed his displeasure about the manner in which the second respondent has passed the order and conducted himself. While we also fully endorse that view, we also observe that the obnoxious sentence in Ext.P12 that the judgment of this Court is not as per the existing rules shows that the 2nd appellant seems to have assumed that he was sitting in judgment over this Court. This amounts to contempt of Court and we ignore that statement with the contempt that it deserves.

The Writ Appeal is dismissed.