Balakrishnan Nair, J.

The respondents in the Writ Petition are the appellants. The respondent herein was the Writ Petitioner. The point that arises for decision in this appeal is whether the application for FL-3 licence has to be considered with reference to the law prevailing on the date of submission of the application or on the date of consideration/disposal of the application. The matter happened to be referred to the Full Bench by a Division Bench of this Court on prima facie noticing that the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in State of Kerala v. Raghavan (2009 (1) KLT 625) cannot stand with the decision of the Apex Court in Kuldeep Singh v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi (AIR 2006 SC 2652). Before dealing with the above question, we will briefly state the facts necessary for the disposal of the case.

2. The respondent submitted an application for FL-3 licence on 30.9.2001. At the relevant time, Rule 13(2) of the Foreign Liquor Rules, as amended by G.O.(P) No.53/97/TD dated 31.3.1997, was in force. As per the said amendment, hotels with three star and higher classifications, Heritage and Resort Hotels as well as classified restaurants were entitled to get the FL-3 licence. The respondent had already applied for Restaurant Approval Order to the competent authority on 8.2.2001. By Ext.P2 order, the competent authority granted Restaurant Approval Order on 15.7.2002. According to the respondent, the officials of the State of Kerala tried to influence the competent authority and delayed the issuance of the Restaurant Approval Order. Therefore, he approached this Court seeking appropriate reliefs. The said Writ Petition was disposed of by Ext.P2(a) judgment dated 20.6.2006, directing the competent authority to grant restaurant approval with retrospective effect, that is, with effect from the date of completion of three months from the date of submission of the application. As a result, the competent authority issued Ext.P6 order dated 5.7.2006, modifying the date of effect of Ext.P2 restaurant approval order as 8.5.2001 instead of 15.7.2002.

3. Since the respondent was not able to produce the Restaurant Approval Order, Ext.P1 application was rejected, at the threshold by the Assistant Excise Commissioner, without processing it by making an endorsement on it, on 30.9.2001 itself.

4. Later, the respondent filed Ext.P3 representation along with Ext.P2 on 28.6.2005, requesting the Assistant Excise Commissioner to process his application and forward the same to the Excise Commissioner. It was followed by another representation dated 28.6.2006. That application was rejected by the Assistant Excise Commissioner by Ext.P4 order dated 28.6.2006. Since the law has changed in the meantime, it was not possible to grant licence for a classified/approved restaurant, it was mentioned in Ext.P4. Challenging Ext.P4 and seeking consequential reliefs the Writ Petition was filed.

5. It was during the pendency of the Writ Petition that Ext.P6 order giving retrospective effect to Ext.P2 from 8.5.2001 was passed. Thereupon, the respondent filed I.A.No.9791 of 2006, seeking to amend the Writ Petition and also incorporating the challenge against the endorsement made in Ext.P1. It was also prayed to consider Ext.P1, applying the Rule/Abkari Policy prevalent on the date of Ext.P1. The learned Single Judge disposed of the Writ Petition, by the judgment under appeal on 8.12.2006, directing to consider the application of the respondent with reference to the qualification required as on the date of application. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment, the present appeal is preferred by the respondents in the Writ Petition.

6. We heard Sri.C.P.Sudhakara Prasad, learned Advocate General for the appellants and Sri.A.Sudhi Vasudevan, learned counsel for the respondent/writ petitioner. The learned Advocate General submitted that the law that could be applied to an application is the one prevailing on the date of consideration/disposal of the same. T