1. These connected cases raise the same issue of law, though under slightly differing factual matrices. It would be convenient to dispose of all these cases by a common judgment. For the purpose of appreciating the factual matrix in which the question of law arises, it would be sufficient to refer in detail to the facts in O.P. No. 7112 of 2002.

2. O.P. No. 7112 of 2002

(a) The petitioner is a private limited company running resort hotels in different areas and does business in the tourism industry within the State of Kerala. It has constructed resorts near Munnar, a well known tourist holiday place in Kerala, by investing huge amounts. The hotel resort at Munnar is classified as

"approved restaurant' by the Central Government in the Ministry of Tourism. The respondents are the State of Kerala and the Commissioner of Excise,

(b) On 11.12.2000 the petitioner applied for an FL-3 licence which would permit it to serve liquor in its restaurant. This application was not processed expeditiously. The petitioner, therefore, filed Writ Petition O.P. No. 824 of 2001 for a direction to the respondents to expeditiously consider its application for FL-3 licence. This, Original Petition was disposed of by a judgment dated 9.1.2001 directing the respondents to consider the application of the petitioner on merits within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. At the time when the application was made one Sunil Kumar was the Managing Director of the petitioner company and he had been convicted in an Abkari offence. The said Sunil Kumar resigned from the post of . Managing Director and one V. Anil Kumar was appointed as the new Managing Director. Despite the said information being furnished to the respondents, the application of the petitioner was once again rejected by order dated 19.5.2001 on the ground that the Managing Director had a conviction under the Abkari Act.

(c) The petitioner filed an other Writ Petition O.P.No. 17106 of 2001 challenging the second rejection order. This Original Petition was disposed of by judgment dated 20.6.2001 in which this Court pointed out that the disqualification of the erstwhile Managing Director could not debar consideration of the application made by the petitioner which was now headed by a new Managing Director about whom there was no such difficulty. The court, therefore, directed that the respondent Commissioner should hear the petitioner and make a fresh order on the application.

(d) On 6.10.2001 the application of the petitioner was again rejected on the following four grounds:

(i) The petitioner was only an'approved restaurant' and not a "classified restaurant" within the meaning of R.13(3) of the Foreign Liquor Rules (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules').

(ii) The appropriate facilities as contemplated by R.13(3) of the Rules were not provided in the petitioner's hotel.

(iii) Only hotels run by the Kerala Tourism Development Corporation and the Indian Tourism Development Corporation were entitled to FL-3 licence under R.13(3) of the Rules.

(iv) In any event, ii was the policy of the Government not to grant any fresh licence.

(e) The petitioner challenged the order dated 6.10.2001 rejecting his application by O.P. No, 31993 of 2001 before this court. This Original Petition was disposed of by a learned single judge by the judgment dated 6th November, 2001 (Ext. PI). The learned Single Judge disagreed with the three grounds put forward for rejection. Relying on a judgment of the Division Bench of this court in State of Kerala and Ors. v.

Sahadevan and Ors. (1992 (2) KLJ 927) he held that'classified restaurant in R.13 could only mean "approved restaurants' and the FL-3 licence could not be rejected on this ground. The learned Single Judge held that the petitioner had a right to be considered for grant of FL-3 licence as long as it had complied with the statutory requirements. However, the learned Single Judge was of the view that if the Government had bonafide taken a policy