JUDGMENT S. Sankarasubban, J. 1. The above Original Petition is filed to quash Exts.P4 and P7 orders and for a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, direction or order commanding the respondents to allow the request of renewing and shifting Exts.P1 FL3 licence No. 13/84-85 as per Ext. P3 application dated 6-5-1997 and to declare that the petitioner firm is entitled to get its Ext. P1 licence No. 13/84-85 defunct from 1-4-1989 renewed and shifted to the building shown in the application, Ext.P3. 2. Petitioner, M/s.M.R. Tourist Home, is a partnership firm of which one K.K.Jose was the Managing Partner. As the Managing Partner of the Firm, Jose applied for FL3 licence. The licence was sanctioned as per the order of the Board of Revenue dated 13-12-1984. Copy of the licence is Ext.P1. According to the petitioner, Ext.P1 licence was renewed upto 31-3-1989. From 1-4-1989, the petitioner did not renew the licence due to heavy financial and personal problems. Petitioner filed Ext. P3 application on 6-5-1997. Under the proviso to R.14 of the Foreign Liquor Rules renewal of licences of Bar hotels which do not function on the expiry of valid licence can be granted on payment of an additional rental of Rs. 25,000/- for each year of defunction, over and above the annual rental for the year of renewal, subject to the observance of other rules in this regard. In Ext. P3 application, the petitioner stated that the petitioner was running a Bar attached hotel in the name of M.R. Tourist Home at Pudukkad and this Bar was not running from 1-4-1988 till that date due to some financial and personal problems. Hence, the petitioner requested to renew the Bar licence at the earliest date. The old premises has been lost and the petitioner had arranged another convenient building with 2 Star facilities at Vellangalore Panchayat, Mukundapuram Taluk, Trichur District. Along with Ext.P3 application, petitioner also enclosed many other relevant papers, which are necessary for the grant of licence. 3. Ext.P3 application was disposed of by Ext.P4 order. In Ext.P4, it is stated as follows: "The FL3 licence No. 13/84-85 was originally sanctioned in the name of Sri.K.K. Jose, Managing Partner, M. R. Tourist Home during 1984-85. The licence was renewed only upto 31-3-1989. But a fresh FL3 licence (No. 59/90-91) was sanctioned as per Board's order No.XA3-18698/90 dt. 3. Ext.P3 application was disposed of by Ext.P4 order. In Ext.P4, it is stated as follows: "The FL3 licence No. 13/84-85 was originally sanctioned in the name of Sri.K.K. Jose, Managing Partner, M. R. Tourist Home during 1984-85. The licence was renewed only upto 31-3-1989. But a fresh FL3 licence (No. 59/90-91) was sanctioned as per Board's order No.XA3-18698/90 dt. 31-8-90 in the name of Sri.K.K. Jose, May Fair Hotels in the same building where FL3 licence No. 13/84-85 was already granted. Subsequently the new FL3 licence was transferred from the name of Sri.K K Jose to the name of Sri.P.C. Francis, Managing Partner, May Fair Hotels, Pudukkad as per Board's order No.XC6-24061/95/D Dis dt. 6-11-95. At present the Bar Hotel is functioning in the same building with newly granted FL3 licence. Now Sri.K.K. Jose wants to get his former FL3 licence No.13/84-85 renewed and shifted to another building in the same Taluk. In the meanwhile, the applicant has filed OP No.14903/97 before the Hon'ble High Court. The Hon'ble Court in its judgment dt. 26-8-97 directed the first respondent (State of Kerala) to consider and dispose of Ext.P1 application for renewal according to law ....." In Ext.P4 order, it is also stated that the FL3 licence No.13/84-85 has been defunct from 1989-90 and during 1990-91 when a fresh FL3 licence in the name of K.K. Jose, May Fair Hotels, was issued in the same building, the old licence stood automatically cancelled. It is against Ext.P4 that the petitioner preferred a petition as Ext.P6. Ext.P6 was rejected by Ext. P7 order. In para.3 of Ext.P7, it is stated that as per the directions contained in the judgment, Ext.P5, the petitioner has been heard. The appeal petition and the hearing notes submitted by the petitioner were examined by the Government in detail. As requested by the petitioner, the case was also examined in the light of the judgment. In Ext.P7, it was held that that was not a question of renewal of a defunct FL3 licence and shifting it to a permissible area, but for renewal and shifting of a licence which ceased to exist after the issuance of a fresh FL3 licence in the name of the very same person and building. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents 2 and 3. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents 2 and 3. In para.3 of the counter affidavit, it is stated that the original licence was issued in the name of the petitioner as Managing Partner of M. R. Tourist Home, Pudukkad. The said licence was renewed upto 31-3-1989. However, the petitioner did not renew the licence thereafter and accordingly the same expired. Subsequently, the petitioner in his capacity as the proprietor, May Fair Hotel, Pudukkad obtained another FL3 licence, which was sanctioned as per Ext.P2. Subsequently, FL3 licence was transferred from the name of the petitioner to the name of P.C. Francis, Managing Partner, May Fair Hotels, Pudukkad. The Bar hotel is still functioning in the same building. It is not known whether K.K. Jose, Managing Partner of the petitioner Firm, has retired from the Firm. It is not correct to say that Ext.P1 licence sanctioned to theManaging Partner, M.R. Tourist Home, Pudukkad has nothing to do with Ext.P2 licence. In para.3 of the counter affidavit, it is stated that Ext.P1 licence sanctioned to the managing partner, M.R. Tourist Home, Pudukkad ceased to be exist when Ext.P2 licence was sanctioned in the name of the very same person in the capacity of Proprietor, May Fair Hotels. Counter affidavit also relies on Exts.R1(a) and R1(b) reports. Thus, the main ground appears to be that since the petitioner has obtained another licence after the expiry of the licence in favour of the petitioner, there cannot be any renewal of licence under R.14 of the Foreign Liquor Rules. 5. We heard counsel for the petitioner Sri.C.C. Thomas and the Government Pleader Sri. Alexander Thomas for the respondents. A perusal of Ext.P7 shows that the renewal was not granted to the petitioner as according to them, since the petitioner has been given a new licence, the old licence had ceased to have any effect and it was cancelled. It is not a case where the authorities found that the ingredients of R.14 of the Foreign Liquor Rules were not satisfied. As already stated, under R.14 of the Foreign Liquor Rules, the licence for Bar hotels, which do not function on the expiry of valid licence can be permitted on payment of an additional rental of Rs. 25,000/- for each year of de function, over and above the annual rental for the year of renewal. 6. As already stated, under R.14 of the Foreign Liquor Rules, the licence for Bar hotels, which do not function on the expiry of valid licence can be permitted on payment of an additional rental of Rs. 25,000/- for each year of de function, over and above the annual rental for the year of renewal. 6. The application of R.14 of the Foreign Liquor Rules came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in the decision reported in State of Kerala v. Abdulla Kunhi, 1998 (2) KLJ 620 . Lakshmanan, J. speaking for the Bench held as follows: "19. We shall now consider the real scope of the relevant rules. It is settled law that a licence issued earlier or renewed earlier can be cancelled only in accordance with law. It is also noted correct to state that on the expiry of the period of licence, it automatically gets extinguished and it cannot be renewed later. In our view, even a time expired licence can be renewed as per the provisions contained in the proviso to R.14 and such a power to renew time expired licence is specifically conferred on the authorities as per the proviso to R.14 subject only to conditions contained therein. A plain reading of the provisions contained in the proviso to R.13(3) and R.14 would, in our view, clearly indicate that even after the expiry of the period of licence, it can be renewed by the appropriate authorities if that authority is satisfied that the conditions mentioned in the said clause as such has been completed with by the applicant. In the instant case, the respondent is ready and willing to pay the additional rental of Rs. 25,000/- for each year of de function. As in the other cases, it is not a case of transfer. It is only a case of renewal of a defunct licence. As pointed out by us earlier, similar licences transferred but also renewed even for the current year (1998-99). As such, none of the grounds alleged in Ext. P3 order refusing to renew the licence are sustainable in law. Since the licence was granted to the respondent after complying with all the legal formalities and requirements, he is entitled to get renewal of the same after complying with the conditions mentioned in the proviso to R.14. As such, none of the grounds alleged in Ext. P3 order refusing to renew the licence are sustainable in law. Since the licence was granted to the respondent after complying with all the legal formalities and requirements, he is entitled to get renewal of the same after complying with the conditions mentioned in the proviso to R.14. We are unable to accept the argument of learned Advocate General that renewal under the proviso can be granted only within a reasonable period and not after the expiry of unduly long periods. We are also unable to countenance his argument that the government has only acted in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules and the Abkari Policy formulated by while examining the respective cases relating to the renewal of licences which were found to be contrary or in violation of the Rules governing the field". (This decision was confirmed by the Supreme Court in SLP. No. 19338/98). The next question is whether the authorities were correct in refusing the renewal on the basis that Ext.P2 licence was issued in the name of the petitioner. Ext.P1 licence was issued to K.K. Jose, Managing Partner, M.R. Tourist Home. There is a schedule to Ext.P1 showing the boundaries of the licensed premises and the particulars of the side room approved for drinking purpose. In the column for details of the side room, it is stated: "M.R.Tourist Home, Door No.32, Pudukkad, Trichur Dist." Ext.P2 licence was issued in the name of K.K. Jose, Proprietor, May Fair Hotels, Pudukkad. Here also, the room that is given is shown in Ext.P4 as Room No.40 in Ward No. VIII of Pudukkad Panchayat. Another thing, which weighed with the Government is that both the Bars were functioning in the same building and it was only recently that Ext.P2 licence was transferred in the name of one Francis. According to the petitioner, it has produced all evidence to show that Ext.P2 licence was not made use of by M. R. Tourist Home but by the May. Fair Hotels, Pudukkad. It cannot be said that on the basis of Exts.P1 and P2 both the licences were issued for the same purposes. The rules does not prohibit the authorities from granting licence for conducting Bar hotels in the same building. The reports filed by the Deputy Commissioner of Excise along with the counter affidavit do not help the Government. It cannot be said that on the basis of Exts.P1 and P2 both the licences were issued for the same purposes. The rules does not prohibit the authorities from granting licence for conducting Bar hotels in the same building. The reports filed by the Deputy Commissioner of Excise along with the counter affidavit do not help the Government. There is no case that Ext.P1 was cancelled before Ext.P2 was issued. We don't find any impediment under the Foreign Liquor Rules to issue Bar licence for different entities. Rule does not prescribe that there is any prohibition for granting two Bar hotels in the same building. Further, the petitioner has also produced certain documents to show that at the time when Ext.P1 licence was issued, it was issued in the name of the petitioner as Managing Partner, M.R. Tourist Home. The second licence was issued in favour of May Fair Hotels. This is a different entity. 7. In the above view of the matter, we don't find any obstacles for granting Ext. 3 application. We quash Exts.P4 and P7 orders and direct the second respondent to grant Ext.P3 application in accordance with the Foreign Liquor Rules. Original Petition is allowed.