V. Giri, J.

The State has come up in appeal challenging the judgment of the learned single Judge, in which a direction has been issued to the respondents in the Writ Petition to consider the writ petitioners eligibility for an FL3 licence for the year 2001-2002 and for renewal for subsequent years, inter alia, with reference to the law laid down by a Bench of this court in B. Six Holiday Resorts (P) Ltd. v State of Kerala (2003 (1) KLT 984). The appellants contend that there is no warrant to direct the writ petitioners eligibility to be considered with reference to the rules prevailing in 2001 i.e. 112.2001, when the writ petitioner had filed Ext.P1 application for an FL3 licence. It is contended that since admittedly the rules were amended with effect from 20.2.2002 and the petitioner would not be eligible under the amended rules, the application was considered and rejected as per Ext.P4 finding that only hotels with 3 star classification are currently eligible for FL3 licence. But since the petitioners hotel did not have 3 star classification, his application was rightly rejected.

2. It is the contention of the writ petitioner that he had submitted an application for FL3 licence through the Assistant Excise Commissioner, Kollam on 112.2001 that had the application been considered with reference to the law prevailing then, he would have been issued an FL3 licence. Reference is made to Annexure R1 (a) a communication issued by the Assistant Director of the India Tourism (Kollam), Government of India, to the Director, Department of Tourism, Government of Kerala, on 7.3.2002, to contend that the Government of Kerala had deliberately requested the Tourism Department of Government of India, to delay the inspection of the hotels, which had sought for Star classification. Had there not been any delay in considering the request in according star classification, the petitioner would have obtained two star classifications for his hotel in 2001 itself. As a matter of fact, as evidenced by Ext.P2, the Tourism Department of the Government of India had issued a Restaurant Approval Order with effect from 11.2001. But, this was pursuant to an interim order issued by this court, consistent with the law declared by the Division Bench in a similarly situated case, in W.A.No.2097/03. It was contended that dealing with the petitioners application for FL3 licence, cannot be in derogation of the petitioners right to be considered with reference to the law prevailing on the date of the application. The writ petitioner relied on the decision of a Bench of this court in B.Six Holiday Resorts case.

3. We heard counsel on both sides.

4. The learned Judge took note of the fact that Ext.P1 application for bar licence was filed on 12.2001 and the Restaurant Approval Order was itself issued with effect from 11.2001 pursuant to the order issued in W.P.(C) No.17520/05. The learned single Judge took note of the law laid down by the Division Bench in B.Six Holiday Resorts case and proceeded to issue an order directing the petitioners application to be considered in the light of Ext.P2 Restaurant Approval Order and in the light of B.Six Holiday Resorts case. We are bound by the law laid down in B.Six Holiday Resorts case. We also take note of the fact that the said dictum has been followed in several other cases thereafter. We further take note of the fact that the Excise Commissioner himself had, as evidenced by Ext.R1(O), given his opinion that the petitioners case is similar to the case of Hotel Mahabali, Irinjalakuda. This fact is relevant inasmuch as that FL3 licence came to be issued in relation to Hotel Mahabali.

5. Learned Government Pleader referred to a decision of this court in Radhamani v. State of Kerala (2005 (3) KLT 86) and also a decision of the Supreme Court in Kuldeep Singh v. Government of NCT of Delhi (2006 (3) KLT SN 66 (C.No.92) SC = AIR 2006 SC 2652). Radhamanis case had considered the case where a hotel owner had filed an applica