ANIL KUMAR G Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An outlet of the Kerala State Beverages (M & M) Corporation Ltd. for Indian Made Foreign Liquor was being run in a building abutting a National Highway. That was decided to be shifted to another building, aside a road which was the old National Highway. According to the writ petitioner, that proposed premises is within the prohibited distance from Kannatti Sree Dhanwanthari Moorthi temple, in terms of the Foreign Liquor Rules, 1953, for short, 'FL Rules'. There is no dispute between the vendor/Corporation and the petitioner regarding the distance. The defence of the vendor/Corporation is that the so called temple is not one which falls within the purview of the proviso to R.13(1)(d) of the FL Rules. R.13(1) defines a temple to "means a place or public, religious worship by Hindus where the deity is installed under a building and includes a mutt also". The proviso to that Rule says that "any structure on the roadside pavement or in a compound of a private building with or without deity shall not be considered as a Temple, Church or Mosque".

(2.) Before the learned single Judge, the petitioner relied on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Sudheesh Kumar v. Commissioner of Excise, 2010 4 KerLT 673, which dealt with R. 2 (m) and the proviso thereof in the Abkari Shops Disposal Rules, 2002 (Kerala), for short, the 'Disposal Rules', which is in pari materia with the aforesaid definition of temple in R. 13(1) of the FL Rules and the proviso thereof. Dilating on the terms of the proviso, the learned single Judge felt it necessary that it be considered as to whether the decision of the Division Bench in Sudheesh Kumar requires reconsideration. Hence, this reference to the Division Bench.

(3.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the vendor/Corporation and learned Government Pleader, in extenso, on the different aspects of the matter, on facts and on the interpretation of the rule in question.