1. The petitioner is a private limited company represented by its Managing Director. The petitioner has constructed a hotel that is classified as a four star hotel by Ext.P1 certificate issued by the Ministry of Tourism, Government of India. The petitioner had submitted an application for the issue of an FL-3 licence under Rule 13(3) of the Foreign Liquor Rules on 11.2.2013. However, in view of Ext.P2 amendment, prohibiting the issue of bar licences, the said application has not been considered. Therefore, without prejudice to his right to pursue the application for FL-3 licence, the petitioner has submitted Ext.P3 application for the grant of an FL-11 licence for the conduct of a beer/wine parlour under Section 13(11) of the Foreign Liquor Rules. As per Ext.P4 the application submitted by the petitioner along with its enclosures has been returned to him, directing him to produce copy of a Clearance Certificate/No Objection Certificate from the local authority. The requirement of such a Clearance Certificate is mandated by Ext.P5 ordinance, it is pointed out. The contention of the petitioner is that Ext.P4 is unsustainable and liable to be set aside. According to him, Ext.P5 ordinance does not apply to the grant of a licence to conduct a beer/wine parlour.

2. The learned Senior Counsel Shri.C.C.Thomas places reliance on the explanation to sub-section 10 of the ordinance to contend that, an FL-11 licence not having been mentioned in the said provision, the requirement of obtaining a Clearance Certificate does not apply to the said category at all. The establishments to which the requirements of the ordinance would apply are, a toddy shop, a foreign liquor shop, a foreign liquor retail shop, an FL-9 establishment or a bar hotel. Since the establishments to which the provision is to apply have been enumerated, such of those establishments that are left out are not liable to comply with the said requirement, it is contended. Therefore, he seeks the issue of appropriate directions quashing Ext.P4 and directing Ext.P3 application to be accepted and considered without insisting on production of a Clearance Certificate from the local authority.

3. The contentions of the petitioner are refuted by Smt.C.K.Sherin, the learned Govt. Pleader who represents respondents 1 to 4. It is pointed out by the learned Govt. Pleader that, Ext.P5 ordinance has defined an abkari shop to include inter alia, a foreign liquor shop also. My attention is drawn to the definition of foreign liquor contained in Rule 1A of the Foreign Liquor Rules to contend that beer is also included therein. Reliance is placed on the decision of this Court in Krishna Kumar v. State of Kerala {1994 KHC 144} to point out that this Court has already held that a beer parlour is also a foreign liquor shop. For the above reasons, it is contended that Ext.P4 is perfectly justified and not liable to be interfered with by this Court.

4. A statement has been filed on behalf of the third respondent. The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit in answer to the contentions in the statement. Adv.K.D.Babu appears for the fifth respondent. I have heard the counsel appearing for the contesting parties.

5. The facts of the case are not in dispute. The only question that arises for consideration is whether the requirement of a Clearance Certificate/No Objection Certificate from the local authority applies to an establishment that proposes to start a beer parlour. The term 'foreign liquor' is defined in Sub Section 13 of Section 3 of the Abkari Act in the following words:-

“Foreign Liquor.- “Foreign Liquor” includes all liquor other than country liquor.

Provided that in any case in which doubt may arise the Government may declare by notification what, for the purposes of this Act, shall be deemed to be “country liquor” and what “foreign liquor”.

The expression 'liquor' has been defined in Sub Section 10 of Section 3 as follows:-

“Liquor:- “Liquor” includes spirits of wine, arrack, spirits, wine