V. Chitambaresh, J.

1. I heard Mr. C.C. Thomas, Mr. T.A. Shaji, Senior Advocates and Mr. George Poonthottam, Mr. Thomas Abraham, Mr. N. Reghuraj, Mr. Sudhi Vasudevan, Mr. Anoop. V. Nair, Advocates on behalf of the petitioners as well as Mr. Tom. K. Thomas, Government Pleader and Mr. Basil Attipetty, on behalf of the respondents. Paucity of time in the midst of summer recess compels me to consider only the interim relief sought by the petitioners in these Writ Petitions and defer the final hearing. The practice of granting FL-3 license to hotels having three-star classification was dispensed with by amendment made to the Foreign Liquor Rules ('the Rules' for short). The amendment was made by G.O. (P) No. 192/2011/TD dated 9.12.2011 after the announcement of the Abkari policy for the year 2011-12 by G.O. (MS) No. 107/2011/TD dated 17.8.2011. The amendment deleting three-star hotels from the category eligible for FL-3 license was struck down in Surendra Das v. State of Kerala, 2013 (1) KLT SN 34 (C. No. 34) : 2012 (3) KHC 653 (D.B.)). But the same was set aside to the extent it interfered with the amendment made to the Rules in State of Kerala v. Surendra Das, 2014 (1) KLT 948 (SC). The operative part of the judgment of the Supreme Court reversing the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court as regards the amendment to the Rules is as follows:-

(i) The judgment rendered by the Division Bench is set aside to the extent it interferes with the amendment brought in the year 2011. The deletion of three star hotels from the category of hotels eligible for FL-3 licenses under R. 13(3) is held valid.

2. The Supreme Court has in the said decision noticed the continuance of licence for hotels having lesser classification by virtue of the 6th and 7th provisos to Rule 13(3) of the Rules. The very observation of the Supreme Court justifying the criticism made to the provisos to the Rule afore-quoted is extracted hereunder:-

36. As rightly submitted by the counsel for the respondents the consequences of the amendment of 2012 will be that four star and five star hotels would not be permitted to have FL-3 licences only on the ground that they are within the prohibited distance from suchhotels which have poor hygiene standards, and which are not following norms laid down by the State Government. We may mention that the FL 3 licences are issued on an annual basis, and it is quite within the powers of the Government not to renew these licenses if such serious violations are reported. But the Government appears to be slow in taking any such action. It will surely be counter-productive to the objective of R. 13(3) which is to promote tourism, as well as to the State's avowed policy of improving the health and nutrition standards of its citizens. The criticism of the respondents, particularly of the hotels which have been permitted under the 6th and 7th proviso to R. 13(3) is therefore quite justified.

(emphasis supplied)

It is by virtue of the 6th and 7th provisos to Rule 13(3) of the Rules are the low end bars in hotels having lesser classification were hitherto being permitted to continue across the State.

3. The State Government was thus alerted of the need to have a re-look at its Abkari policy and probably to adopt a uniform criterion for the renewal of licence to the hotels. The State Government had earlier granted time up to the year 2007 and later up to the year 2010 to the existing licencees to upgrade the standard of their hotels to two-star and above. The Government thought that it is time for an introspection as regards the renewal of licence in the context of the observations in Surendra Das's case particularly of slow action. The State Government accordingly issued G.O(Ms) No. 56/2014/TD dated Thiruvananthapuram 2.4.2014 (which is impugned in these Writ Petitions) and para. 6 there of is as follows:-

6. Government examined the request of the Excise Commissioner in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the legal opinio