IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 16TH JUNE 2009 / 26TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 16644 of 2009(A) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- AMMINI PRASAD, PROPRIETRIX, HOTEL POURNAMI, OPP. KSRTC BUS STATION, CHENGNNUR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.P.KURUVILLA JACOB RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, TAXES (A) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, COMMISSIONERATE OF EXCISE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. K.R. DEEPA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/06/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.16644 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT “C.R.” 1. The petitioner applied for an FL-3 licence to run a bar in a hotel belonging to her. The application was rejected on the ground that it violates Rule 13(3) of the Foreign Liquor Rules in as much as the distance to that hotel from Bethel Church, Chengannur is much less than 200 metres. When the application was rejected by the authority at the first instance, distance from the church to the proposed premises was determined as around 120 metres. On actual physical verification following an earlier round of litigation before this Court, it is noticed as 127.40 metres, which is much much less than 200 metres prescribed in Rule 13(3) of Foreign Liquor Rules. The petitioner does not dispute that measurement. But, her contention is that the road is one through which only one way traffic is permitted and from the gate of the Church, one has to go round through the road in front of the Railway WPC.16644/09 Page numbers Station to reach the proposed premises and therefore, if the distance is measured through that track, it would be more than 600 metres and thereby the rule would stand satisfied. 2. May be that one way traffic is maintained in that road in question and motor vehicles proceeding from Bethel Church can reach the proposed bar only by traversing the road through which the vehicle was permitted to move. But there is nothing in the Foreign Liquor Rules or in any other abkari law to disqualify a person from walking into the bar hotel, or requiring him to go to the bar only in a motor vehicle. Therefore, what matters is the distance to be traversed from the Church to the proposed bar. That measurement cannot be confined to be one on the basis of any restriction on movement of traffic imposed by the competent traffic regulating authority in relation to motor vehicles. Therefore, I do not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the finding of the Government in the order passed following the earlier directions of this Court. WPC.16644/09 Page numbers 3.With the aforesaid, the learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that there are various other aspects which have not been considered or dealt with by the Government in the revision. In view of the aforesaid findings, it was unnecessary for the Government to consider the further points in the revision since they would be empty formalities, particularly when the petitioner did not rely on any of those points of contentions to a plea that the distance rule would be otherwise satisfied. For the aforesaid reasons, this writ petition fails. In the result, the same is dismissed. No costs. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. kkb.17/6.