The court emphasized the importance of considering objections and applying the relevant rules in force at the time of the application, ultimately affirming the decision to relocate the shop based on the reasons provided by the Licensing Authority under Rule 163.

T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J.

1. Heard Mr. G.K. Ilanthirayan, the learned counsel appearing for M/s. Sai Bharath and Ilan, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. J. Kumaran, the learned Government Advocate for the respondents 1 and 2 and Mr. R. Natarajan, the learned counsel for the third respondent.

2. The petitioner was granted a licence, in Form FL-2 to establish a Liquor Shop with Bar attached. Initially, the Shop and the Bar were located in a rented premises. After the petitioner's spouse purchased a property, in T.S. No. 61/1, Tirunallar Road, Karaikal, they put up a construction to run the Liquor Shop and Bar in the said premises.

3. The petitioner applied for the transfer of the licence to their own premises, which was granted, and an order to the said effect was passed by the second respondent on 11.07.2009. The third respondent, who is the Secretary of a Temple situated opposite to the petitioner's new premises challenged the said order, by filing a Writ Petition in W.P. No. 15240 of 2009. The said Writ Petition was dismissed, by order dated 17.08.2009. On Appeal, in Writ Appeal No. 1432 of 2009, the Hon'ble Division Bench, by judgment, dated 06.11.2009, disposed the Appeal, and permitted the appellant (third respondent herein) to prefer an Appeal to the first respondent against the order, dated 11.07.2009 passed by the second respondent, granting permission to the petitioner to shift the Shop and Bar to the new premises. The Appeal filed by the third respondent was dismissed by the first respondent, by order, dated 07.07.2010. The third respondent, challenged the said order, by filing a Writ Petition No. 25471 of 2010, which was partly allowed, by order, dated 18.02.2011, and the second respondent was directed to conduct a fresh enquiry into the matter.

4. On a perusal of the said order, dated 18.02.2011, made in W.P. No. 25471 of 2010, it is seen that the Court made very strong observations against the second respondent, and the manner, in which he had granted the permission to shift the shop vide his order, dated 11.07.2009. In the meantime, the petitioner herein filed a Writ Appeal in W.A. No. 1135 of 2011, against the order passed in W.P. No. 25471 of 2010, dated 18.02.2011. However, the said Writ Appeal was dismissed by judgment, dated 24.11.2011. Even prior to that, the second respondent, after conducting a spot inspection, passed an order, dated 26.08.2011, rejecting permission to shift the shop and the petitioner was granted 30 days time to relocate the shop, failing which, the license will be suspended. This order, dated 26.08.2011 is impugned in this Writ Petition.

5. The petitioner's contention is that, the Temple was constructed in the year 2005, and it is a small Temple, put up by the third respondent, by encroaching into the poramboke land, and the Temple was constructed with an ulteriorpurpose, as the third respondent's house is situated adjacent to the Temple, and there is no road access to his property, and using the Temple, he obtained road access to his property.

6. Further, it is contended that the petitioner's Shop is situated on the opposite side of the road, and beyond the road, there is a small water channel, and beyond that, is the Temple and that would not in any way remain as a obstacle for locating the Shop. It is submitted that, before passing the order, dated 11.07.2009, the second respondent inspected the premises, called for objections, and after having found that there is no objections raised, granted permission. Therefore, the impugned order is required to be interfered with.

7. Further, it is contended that, the Pondicherry Excise Rules, 1970 (hereinafter, referred to as 'the Rules') has been amended during 2014, and in terms of amended Rule 113, the distance restrictions of 50 meters/100 meters from place of worship or Educational Institutions will not apply to areas designated as commercial or industrial by the Town Planning Authorities, and the area is a commercial area, and as