Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 3668 (MAD)

N. Ramalingam v. Commissioner Prohibition & Excise

2012-08-23

M.JAICHANDREN

body2012
Judgment :- 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition, the learned Additional Government Pleader, appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2, had stated that the third respondent had submitted a renewal application, dated 29.03.2012, before the second respondent, for the renewal of the FL-3 licence, to run a bar in "Hotel Kavitha" at No.67 (10-A) Pattakkarar Building, Gandhiji Road, Erode District. 3. He had further submitted that the second respondent may be directed to forward the renewal application to the first respondent, within a specified period, and the first respondent may be directed to consider the same and pass an appropriate orders thereon, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as well as the third respondent. 4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the third respondent have no objection for this Court passing such an order. 5. In view of the above, the second respondent is directed to forward the renewal application, dated 29.03.2012, submitted by the third respondent, for the issuance of the FL3 licence, to run a bar in "Hotel Kavitha" at No.67 (10-A) Pattakkarar Building, Gandhiji Road, Erode District, to the first respondent, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of such application, from the second respondent, the first respondent shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks thereafter, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as well as to the third respondent. 6. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.