1. The challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P12 order of the second respondent whereby Ext.P1 licence has been suspended till the disputes between the partners are settled and reported. The further prayers are for a declaration that the petitioner is entitled to conduct FL-3 No.19/Tvpm on the strength of Ext.P1 licence as his own licence and to issue a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 to 4 to pay the damages sustaining to the petitioner due to the closure of the bar in pursuance to Ext.P12 from 1.1.2011.

2. According to the petitioner, Ext.P1 licence was issued in the name of his father late Sri.M.P.Philip. Obviously, it was issued in terms of Rule 13(3) of the Foreign Liquor Rules to Sri.M.P.Philip, Manager, National Tourist Home. It is the contention of the petitioner that Ext.P1 was issued to his father late Sri.M.P.Philip in his personal capacity and it is not a licence granted and issued to a partnership firm. After the death of Sri.M.P.Philip the licence was transferred provisionally to his wife and sons and then as per Ext.P2 it stood transferred in the name of the petitioner. Admittedly, it was renewed up to 31.3.2011.

In the year 2008-2009 respondents 5 and 6 raised objections against its renewal contending that they are partners of `Deepa Bar' and they entered into a partnership agreement with the said M.P.Philip to constitute the said partnership firm namely, `Deepa Bar'. Their further contention was that it was functioning in TC-29/993, National Tourist Home and the bar licence was issued to Sri.M.P.Philip for and on behalf of the registered partnership firm namely, `Deepa Bar'. The said objections raised by respondents 5 and 6 were rejected by the Assistant Excise Commissioner as per Ext.P6 order dated 5.4.2008. They had also requested for an enquiry in the matter and cancellation of Ext.P1 licence or to freeze its renewal or suspend the same till the completion of such enquiry and final adjudication in the matter. Later, they approached this Court by filing W.P.(C)No.9872 of 2008. The said writ petition was disposed of as per Ext.P3 judgment. As per Ext.P3, the second respondent Excise Commissioner was directed to consider the representation filed by respondents 5 and 6 at the time of consideration of the question of renewal of the licence. The contention of the petitioner is that, despite the death his deceased father was made the first respondent in the said writ petition. Subsequently, the petitioner herein filed R.P.No.423 of 2008 in W.P.(C) No.9872 of 2008.

Ext.P4 is the order passed in the said review petition and later, as per Ext.P5, Ext.P3 judgment was recalled and W.P.(C)No.9872 of 2008 was dismissed. On 5.4.2008 Ext.P6 order was passed pursuant to the direction in W.P.(C)No.11545 of 2008. It was held therein that the partnership between Sri.M.P.Philip and respondents 5 and 6 was dissolved on or before 31.3.1991 and found that the petitioner was eligible to get renewal of his FL-3 licence. Against Ext.P6 order, respondents 5 and 6 filed appeal before the Excise Commissioner and the same was dismissed as per Ext.P7. The contention of the petitioner is that Ext.P7 order was passed by the Excise Commissioner relying on the Full Bench decision of this Court in Narayanan & Company v. Commissioner of Income Tax (1996 (1) KLT 546 (FB)). Later, respondents 5 and 6 herein filed O.S.No.491 of 2004 before the Additional Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram for dissolution of partnership firm, settlement of accounts and also for injunction. The petitioner and other legal heirs were arrayed as additional respondents 3 to 5 therein. As per Ext.P8 judgment dated 12.3.2010., the said original suit was dismissed with cost. The contention of the petitioner is that as per Ext.P8 it was found that no firm by name `Deepa Bar' was dissolved as per the lawyer's notice dated 13.5.1988 which was marked as Ext.C1 therein. While so, the petitioner received Ext.P10 show cause notice. and he has responded to