The court affirmed that a license to trade in liquor can only be considered if all procedural requirements are met, rejecting any premature judicial directions.

JUDGMENT

[Judgment of the Court was delivered by T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J.]

We have heard Mr.L.Chandrakumar, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant-fourth respondent, Mr.B.Saravanan, learned Counsel appearing for the first respondent and Mr.K.P.Krishnadass, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 2, 3 and 4.

2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 16.03.2021, in W.P(MD).No.20920 of 2017. The said writ petition was filed by the first respondent herein, praying for a direction upon the second respondent, namely, the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, to renew his FL3 license to run a bar in the lodge under the name and style 'Gowri Tourist Home', in Batlagundu, Dindigul District, for the period 2016-17 and 2017-18 and to consequently, direct the respondents 3 and 4 herein, to supply liquor bottles to the said facility.

3. The learned Single Bench, by the impugned order, has directed the first respondent herein, to file a renewal application within a time frame and the competent authority was directed to pass orders on the application. The learned Writ Court also took note of the submission made on behalf of the appellant herein, who was impleaded as the fourth respondent in the writ petition, but the appellant has filed R.C.O.P.No.14 of 2016, on the file of the District Munsif/Rent Controller, Nilakkottai, seeking for eviction and the same is pending before the learned Rent Controller/District Munsif, Nilakkottai, and taking note of this submission, the said eviction petition was directed to be disposed of on merits within a period of seven months.

4. Further, the learned Writ Court clarified that the pendency of the eviction proceedings will not be taken note of by the authority while considering the renewal application. The appellant who was the fourth respondent in the writ petition is the owner of the building, where, the first respondent is carrying on a business of running a lodging house and earlier had been granted license to run a bar, for which, FL3 license was granted. There has been dispute between the parties and several writ petitions and writ appeals were filed earlier, and orders were passed and one of which being that the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court directed that the renewal of the license for much earlier period to be considered without insisting upon a No Objection Certificate from the appellant/landlord, since there was a tenant-landlord dispute.

5. We may not be required to examine all these issues as we are convinced that without filing an application and without alleging that there is a delay in considering such an application, the Writ Court would not have been justified in directing the first respondent to file an application and then issued a direction simultaneously to consider the application. The law is well settled as to when a Writ of Mandamus to be issued. In the instant case, it was the duty of the first respondent to establish that there has been supine indifference on the part of the second respondent herein, to exercise the statutory power though the first respondent has complied with all formalities or that there has been inordinate delay in the second respondent exercising his powers under the provisions of the Act.

6. We find that there is no such allegations made by the first respondent to justify the Writ Court to issue a direction for consideration of application, which is yet to be filed. It is to be noted that the license sought for is to trade in liquor and the first respondent has no fundamental right to trade in liquor and the trading of liquor is regulated by the provi