RAVINDRAN Vs. GEORGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred against the judgment of the learned single Judge in OP 14835 of 1992-N dated 20-1-1993 dismissing the writ petition. The writ petitioner is the appellant. The main point arising in the case deals with the interpretation that is to be given to the Note below R.6(2) of the Kerala Abkari Shops (Disposal in Auction) Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Abkari Rules').

(2.) The appellant writ petitioner is a resident of Irinjalakuda Municipality. Second respondent is an abkari contractor who successfully bid in an abkari auction in the Irinjalakuda Range for three years from 1-4-1991 to 31-3-1994. The case of the appellant is that the toddy shop of the aforesaid second respondent is within 200 metres from Maria Bhavan Church and, therefore, the same is within the prohibited distance under the Abkari Rules and is liable to be closed down. A question had arisen as to whether the said Maria Bhavan Church is a mere chapel coming within the meaning of 'chapel' as explained in Abdul Hameed v. Asst. Excise Commissioner ( 1992 (1) KLT 774 ) or is a regular church. Yet another question that was raised before the learned single Judge was as to whether a particular pathway noticed by the Advocate-Commissioner in his report and plan can be said to be a pathway/lane/street/road "generally used by the public" so as to bring the toddy shop within the prohibited distance from the above said church. The learned single Judge came to the conclusion, on a consideration of the evidence by way of affidavits, that the church is situated in a compound where there is a hospital by name St. Vincent Diabetic Research Centre and Hospital. There is also a convent and a nursery school. The learned Judge further held that the building complex is not an exclusive church, but is in the hospital complex where there is a small building having a measurement of 18 1/2 Ft x 14 1/2 Ft and the same is used as a prayer hall. The room, according to learned Judge, is too small for being used as a church and Ext. P2 certificate issued by the Vicar General of the Diocese of Irinjalakuda would also show that it is a chapel. The learned Judge further observed that the mere fact that prayer is offered by some Christians of that place by itself is not sufficient to bring the place of worship within the definition of church. It is only a building attached to a hospital complex wherein provision is made for the inmates to offer their prayers. The size of the building also is an indication of the fact that it is not a church for the purpose of Abkari Rules and it is only a private prayer hall intended mainly for the convenience of the inmates of the institution. Within the complex there is also a convent wherein nuns are staying and it is for their benefit that the prayer hall is constructed and mass is being conducted there. No doubt, occasionally outside people may also be worshipping there, but that by itself would not convert the place into a regular church for the purpose of Abkari Rules. These are the findings of the learned single Judge.

(3.) We are in entire agreement with the reasoning and conclusion arrived at by the learned single Judge that the building in question is a mere chapel and not a church coming within the provisions of the Abkari Rules.