Judgment :- Ramachandran Nair, J. 1. This is the 3rd round of litigation in the same matter, wherein the challenge is against the denial of bar licence (FL- 3) under Rule 13(3) of the Kerala Foreign Liquor Rules for the petitioner to run a bar in the three star hotel constructed at Kovalam, which is a prime tourism centre. 2. We have heard learned Senior counsel Shri.C.C.Thomas for the petitioner and learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents. 3. The petitioner constructed a three star hotel at Kovalam with Rs.9 crores borrowed from M/s. Kerala Financial Corporation, and under the loan agreement itself, the petitioner has to repay Rs.20 lakhs per month to clear the debt taken from the KFC alone. Ext.P3 Application for FL-3 licence was submitted on 09/07/2010. After conducting enquiry, application was turned down by Ext.P12 order dated 19/07/2011on the sole ground that there is violation of CRZ (Coastal Reserve Zone) Regulation in the construction of the hotel. However, when this order was challenged before the learned Single Judge, the learned Single Judge took note of the inspection report and the contentions raised in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, wherein it was clearly stated that all conditions for grant of FL-3 licence contained in Rule 13(3) of the KFL Rules were satisfied. It was further found that the only ground based on which FL-3 licence was declined was CRZ violation. The learned Single Judge held that CRZ violation is with regard to construction of the building which was done with permit issued by the local authority and it is not for the Excise Authorities to look into the same. Since the conditions for granting licence are satisfied, the learned Single Judge issued Ext.P14 judgment dated 24/10/2011 directing the Government to consider issuance of licence particularly because even according to the counter affidavit, the petitioner had satisfied all the conditions for entitlement for licence under Rule 13(3) of KFL Rules. The respondents even thereafter did not comply with the judgment. When Contempt of Court Case No.1292/2011 was filed, I.A. for extension of time was filed, which was granted but directing appearance of the Excise Commissioner in case of failure to comply with the judgment within the extended time. It is at this stage, belated Writ Appeal, viz. W.A.No.1962/2011, is filed by the State with delay condonation petition. When Contempt of Court Case No.1292/2011 was filed, I.A. for extension of time was filed, which was granted but directing appearance of the Excise Commissioner in case of failure to comply with the judgment within the extended time. It is at this stage, belated Writ Appeal, viz. W.A.No.1962/2011, is filed by the State with delay condonation petition. Even though delay was condoned, the Writ Appeal itself has become infructuous because of subsequent orders issued in compliance with the judgment impugned in the Writ Appeal. The State and the Excise Commissioner have issued Exts.P19 & P20 orders again declining licence on a new ground that there is a temple, namely, Theruvila Shree Bhadrakali temple, in the hotel premises. 4. During hearing learned Senior counsel for the petitioner referred to Ext.P16, wherein the Commissioner of Excise itself has clearly found that the temple is a private temple belonging to the very same family, which has constructed the hotel. In fact the applicant himself is the treasurer of the temple, and the president and the secretary have given a statement that the temple is a family temple and temple authorities have no objection in issuing FL-3 licence to the petitioner hotel. The Excise Commissioner while issuing Ext.P16 has considered all the objections stated by the Government including CRZ violation and also with regard to the temple. The clear finding of the Excise Commissioner in Ext.P16 report is that there is no CRZ violation because petitioner is one among several hotels in the beach site and the building itself is constructed with the prior approval by the local Panchayat. So far as the temple is concerned, the clear finding in Ext.P16 is that it is a private temple owned by the family of the persons, who are in control of the petitioner hotel. Learned Government Pleader submitted that there is public worship in the temple and so much so, even if the temple is owned by family members of the petitioner hotel, it is an objectionable site under the Rules disentitling the petitioner for FL-3 licence. After hearing both sides what we notice is that the State has been shifting their ground for declining the licence periodically. In the earlier round of litigation, which led to Ext.P14 judgment, it was clearly conceded that all the conditions of Rule 13(3) are satisfied and the only objection is with regard to CRZ violation. After hearing both sides what we notice is that the State has been shifting their ground for declining the licence periodically. In the earlier round of litigation, which led to Ext.P14 judgment, it was clearly conceded that all the conditions of Rule 13(3) are satisfied and the only objection is with regard to CRZ violation. However, when the present order is issued under the threat of contempt action, the State shifted the ground from CRZ violation to presence of the temple, which was already considered and overruled by the Excise Commissioner in Ext.P16 report. The State has no case that any of the devotees or local residents stated to be worshipping in the temple has raised any objection against the functioning of the hotel or even the grant of FL-3 licence to the petitioner hotel. FL-3 licence itself is granted to star hotels and the object is tourism promotion. The petitioner being a three star hotel is promoting tourism in the State and most of the rooms are occupied during season by foreign tourists and every hotel with three star facility is enjoying bar licence, is the specific case of the petitioner. We are of the view that shifting of the ground in each and every order issued by the Government in declining licence itself is indicative of the fact that the State does not want to grant licence to the petitioner. In our view, the findings of the learned Single Judge in Ext.P14 judgment and Ext.P18 order are such that the Government and the Excise Commissioner have no justification to decline licence. Going by the findings in Ext.P16 report of the Excise Commissioner and the counter affidavit filed in the earlier round of litigation which led to Ext.P14, the conclusion that the petitioner has satisfied all the conditions of Rule 13(3) of the KFL Rules entitling for FL-3 licence is inescapable. So much so, we allow the Writ Petition by vacating Exts.P19 & P20 and direct respondents 1 & 2 to issue FL-3 licence to the petitioner within a period of ten days on the petitioner complying with all formalities like remittance of licence fee for the current financial year, execution of agreement or bond etc. required under the Rules. This Writ Petition is allowed as above.