Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Additional Advocate General on behalf of the respondents.

2. The petitioner is a club. It was issued a license in terms of Rule 13(4A) of the Foreign Liquor Rules. With the passage of time, it appears that controversies arose as to whether the land and building held by the club belongs to it. After statutory proceedings, the parties reached this court. The contentions of the club were repelled by this court in Ext.R1(b) judgment, essentially holding that the club could not claim title or right to be in possession of the land in question. This court therefore refused to interfere with the proceedings initiated under the Land Conservancy Act. That matter is pending, at the instance of the club, in W.A.2423 of 2008. Clarifying Ext.P2 interlocutory order in that appeal, Ext.P3 was issued granting stay of dispossession, however that continuance in possession should be otherwise in accordance with law. I note those interim orders only to assure that by the force of that protective order, the club continues to be in possession and is not to be dispossessed by the statutory authorities under the Land Conservancy Act as of now. When the Land Conservancy proceedings were pending before the Land Revenue Commissioner, the club filed WP(C)11578 of 2008 and obtained Ext.P7 interlocutory order directing renewal of the foreign liquor license, without reference to ownership of the property. Such an order was issued at that point of time having regard to the fact that proceedings were then pending before the Land Revenue Commissioner. In fact, I had issued Ext.P7 order making it subject to the result of the revision then pending before the Land Revenue Commissioner. It was thereafter that Ext.R1 (b) judgment was issued by this court, after Ext.R1(a) order was issued by the Land Revenue Commissioner.

3. The petitioner club is aggrieved by Ext.P4 bearing the date 15.7.2009 and served on them on 17.7.2009. It is pointed out by its learned senior counsel that service of Ext.P4 was itself made a high drama by service of the said notice in the evening of 17.7.2009. While the learned Additional Advocate General disputes this, it is unnecessary for this court to go into that aspect.

4. Ext.P4 is issued as a composite order of suspension and also as a notice for pre-decisional hearing on the question as to whether license granted to the club is liable to be cancelled on a ground referable to the allegation of the official respondents that the club does not satisfy condition (iv) under Rule 13(4A). That provision obliges that the land and buildings should be in the name of the society; that is the club, to hold an FL-4, a club license. In the light of the fact that it is a pre-decisional notice, I do not deem it appropriate for this court to express, either way, at this point of time, as to whether the land and building is in the name of the club though the learned senior counsel for the petitioner says that even Thrissur Corporation has issued certificates showing the club as the owner of the buildings in question.

5. But it needs to be considered whether apart from notice for pre-decisional hearing, an order of suspension should have also been issued.

6. Advertance to Section 26 of the Abkari Act would show that the Commissioner is reposed with the power to cancel or suspend the license. Clauses (a) to (e) provide the different jurisdictional situations in which an order of suspension or cancellation may follow. Jurisprudentially, a distinction has necessarily to be maintained by the repository of power, while it proceeds to exercise such a composite authority. The power to suspend, as that term indicates, is necessarily a power to impose a temporary measure, which would be prohibitory in nature. However, a power to cancel is the power to make the absolute order determining the license. Do the rules envisage suspension of license in all cases enumerated under Section 26? Is th