FL-11 licence fees refundable if no proof of business commencement; direct individual reconsideration despite non-refund rules.

These writ appeals are filed by the State of Kerala and its officials challenging the common judgment dated 10.04.2025 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) Nos. 10263, 10308, 10234 of 2018, 254 of 2019, 34398 of 2017, 3150 of 2021 and 22084 of 2018 respectively.

2. We have heard the arguments of the learned Senior Government Pleader and the respective counsel appearing for the respondents in all these cases.

3. The respondents are said to be running the bars and restaurants/public Wine shops after obtaining licences from the Excise Department. Subsequently, in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court inState of Tamil Nadu & others v. K. Balu & Another [ (2017) 2 SCC 281 ], their FL-11 licences were neither renewed nor rendered operational and thereafter, some of the writ petitioners applied for issuing FL-3 licences pending consideration of applications for issuance of FL-11 licence. Thereafter, in the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court inArrive Safe Society of Chandigarh v. State (UT of Chandigarh) [ (2018) 13 SCC 133 ], which clarified the decision inK. Balu (supra) holding that the order does not prohibit licensed establishments within municipal areas and in view of the change in the Abkari policy introduced by the Government of Kerala, the writ petitioners were said to have secured FL-3 licence pending consideration of FL-11 licence. Subsequently, they submitted applications seeking refund of the amount paid by them while applying for FL-11 licences. However, the same was not considered by the Excise Commissioner and therefore, they filed writ petitions before this Court seeking a direction to the Excise Department to refund the FL-11 licence fee remitted by them.

4. During the pendency these writ petitions, an interim order was passed by a learned single Judge on 18.01.2022 permitting the petitioners to file a representation before the Government within two weeks from that day seeking refund of the amounts and the Government was directed to consider the same and pass appropriate orders within a month thereafter. Accordingly, the competent authority considered their applications for refund of the amount deposited and rejected the same on 16.12.2022. Thereafter, this Court, as per the impugned common judgment dated 10.04.2025, disposed of the writ petitions directing the competent among the respondents to consider the request for refund of licence fee paid for the respective abkari years or adjust towards the future licence fee payable by the writ petitioners.

Being aggrieved, this writ appeals are filed.

5. The learned Senior Government Pleader has strenuously contended that the writ petitioners filed application for renewal of FL-11 licence and the same was actually granted by the competent authority and the reason that they have also obtained FL-3 licence itself is not a ground for refund of the licence fee. As per Rule 14A of the Foreign Liquor Rules , once the licence fee is paid as per Rule 14, the same cannot be remitted or refunded or abated for any reasons. The same was mentioned at clause 14 of FL-11 licence that it is not refundable. Such being the case, the question of refunding the licence fee to the respondents does not arise.

6. During the course of arguments, the learned Government Pleader also contended that the order passed by the competent authority was a common order in all the cases and therefore, separate orders have to be passed for individual cases as the facts of each writ petitions differ and therefore, some more time may be granted for reconsidering the applications filed by the respondents which is challenged in these cases and therefore, he prayed for disposal of the appeals by granting time for considering the application, taking into account Rule 14A of the Foreign Liquor