ABDUL HAMEED Vs. ASST EXCISE COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Appeal is against the judgment of the learned Single Judge in O.P.9179of 1991dt.22-10-1991. The first writ petitioner is the appellant. The second writ petitioner has not joined with the appellant in filing this appeal.

(2.) The facts of the case are as follows: In the writ petition which was filed on 9th September, 1991 the appellant questioned the bar licence issued in favour of the fourth respondent in Form FL 3 on 4-9-1991. Before the learned Single Judge the appellant raised the question that the bar is located within the prohibited area that is within 200 metres of the mosque. The learned Single Judge by order dated 18-9-1991 passed in CMP 16025 of 1991 directed the Assistant Excise Commissioner to cause the distance between the shop of the fourth respondent and the mosque measured. Thereafter the Assistant Commissioner himself went and measured the distance between the hotel and the mosque. The Assistant Commissioner pointed out in his report dt. 3-10-1991 that according to Note 2 under sub-rule (3) of R.13 of the Foreign Liquor Rules, in calculating the distance the basis will be shortest pathway/lane/street/road generally used by the public. When the distance from the gate of the Kaithakkad Muslim Juma ath Mosque to the gate of the Kottayil Tourist Home was measured through the shortest road generally used by the public (Kizhakkambalam-Muvattupuzha Road) the distance was 210 metres. When the measurement was taken diagonally in a straight line through the same road the distance was 205 metres. The Mosque is on the southern side of the road and the Kottayil Tourist Home is on the northern side. The Mosque as such is located at a distance: of 47.5 metres inside from the gate of its compound. The Courtyard in front of the Kottayil Tourist Home is having a width of 8 metres. This in short is the report submitted by the Assistant Excise Commissioner.

(3.) The report was filed by the Assistant Excise Commissioner after measuring the distance. The appellant did not challenge the correctness of the said report. This is what the learned Single Judge has observed: