JAMES Vs. FR THOMAS VALLAVANCOTT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SEVENTH respondent in O. P. No. 15102 of 1992 is the appellant herein. In the original petition filed by respondents 1 to 5 herein they challenged the licence granted to the appellant herein for conducting a bar in his Hotel by name 'hotel Rose' at Bharananganam. The allegation of respondents 1 to 5 was to the effect that the appellant had been conducting Bar hotel near a Church and schools. It was alleged in the original petition that mortal remains of Blessed Sr. Alphonsa are kept at the Alphonsa Shrine, bharananganam and this place is a centre of pilgrimage and thousands of devotees and worshippers visit this place and the Bar attached hotel owned and conducted by the appellant herein is very close to the Alphonsa Shrine. It was also alleged that the Bar hotel is in close proximity to St. Mary's Forane catholic Church and three other schools, namely, St. Mary's High School for boys, St. Little Teresa's L. P. School, S. H. High School for girls and also a burial ground attached to St. Mary's Forane Catholic Church. Petitioners in the o. P. alleged that the granting of licence to 7th respondent therein was in defiance of Rr. 13 (3) and 39 of the Foreign Liquor Rules.

(2.) APPELLANT herein resisted the claim by contending that the Bar attached hotel owned by the appellant is not very close to St. Mary's forane Catholic Church or St. Mary's High School or other institutions mentioned by the petitioners in the original petition. According to the appellant, the Bar hotel is beyond the prohibited distance. The hotel building and the hotel room in which Bar is conducted are different and there is no access to the hotel from the Bar. The Bar rooms on the side of the hotel are independent and the only access to the Bar hotel is through the pathway provided for it. It is alleged that the distance is to be calculated on the basis of the shortest pathway to the Bar which is beyond 200 metres from the church, school and other institutions.

(3.) IT is not known whether this pathway was in existence at the time when Ext. PV licence was granted in favour of the appellant. If the pathway is in existence the Bar hotel is certainly within the prohibited distance as envisaged under R. 13 (3) of the Foreign Liquor Rules.