Judicial review ensures that administrative decisions adhere to principles of natural justice, including notice and hearing.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner company is conducting a four star classified hotel in Thookkupalam in Udumbanchola Excise Range in Idukki District. On the strength of the classification of the hotel, the petitioner submitted an application on 30.12.2025 for issuance of FL-3 licence under Rule 13(3) of the Foreign Liquor Rules, 1953 (for short, ‘the Rules’). However, by Ext.P5 order under Rule 13A(3) of the Rules, the 1^st respondent rejected the application on the ground that there is likelihood of the privilege being misused. The petitioner states that Ext.P5 order has been passed without notice and hearing the petitioner, without consulting the Government and also without considering Exts.P1 to P3 recommendations of the authorities concerned.

2. Aggrieved by Ext.P5, the petitioner preferred Ext.P6 revision petition under Rule 40 of the Rules before the 3^rd respondent. The grievance of the petitioner is that Ext.P6 is not so far considered by the 3^rd respondent. Accordingly, this writ petition is filed for the following relief:-

“i. issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 3^rd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P6 revision petition within three weeks from today.”

3. Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.

4. In the facts and circumstances of the case and having regard to the submissions made across the Bar and taking note of the fact that Ext.P6 is a statutory revision petition, there will be a direction to the 3^rd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P6, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of five weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

The writ petition is disposed of.