STATE OF KERALA Vs. SUKUMARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There is a delay of two days in filing the appeal against the judgment of the learned single Judge. Explanation has been rendered by the Government Pleader saying that he miscalculated the last day for filing the appeal and that was the primary reason for the delay. We consider it unnecessary to issue notice to the respondents on the petition for condonation of delay, as it is likely to put undue burden on the respondents who are required to engage a lawyer and spend money for answering the application for condonation of delay, when on merits there is absolutely no substance in this case.

(2.) The foreign liquor retail shop licence was given to Sivarajendran. Pattom Sukumaran challenged the said decision in O. P. No. 4561 of 1987 on the ground that no such licence could have been granted having regard to the prohibition contained in R.6(2)(b) of Chapter V of the Abkari Shops (Disposal in Auction) Rules. There is a clear statutory prohibition for granting licence for running a foreign liquor shop within 400 metres from any educational institutions, temples, church, mosque or burial ground. The learned single Judge has found that the grant of licence in favour of Sivarajendran has been made in violation of this statutory provision. It has been found, among other things, that a residential hostel connected with an educational institution is located within the distance of 400 metres. It is on that ground that the writ petition has been allowed and the licence granted has been quashed. The grantee of the licence challenged the decision of the learned single Judge in W.A. No. 36/88. That writ appeal came to be dismissed by a Division Bench of this court by judgment rendered on the 8th of January, 1988. It is after the disposal of that appeal that the State Government has chosen to prefer this appeal, with an application for condonation of delay.

(3.) As the Division Bench has, in W. A. No. 36/88, already affirmed the decision of the learned single Judge, even if the delay in filing the appeal is condoned in this case, this appeal has to be dismissed on merits. We fail to see why it become necessary for the State Government to prefer an appeal against the judgment of the learned single Judge, that too after the judgment of the learned single Judge stood affirmed by the decision of the Division Bench in W. A. No. 36/88, filed by the aggrieved party. Counsel for the State however submitted that the State is interested in the principle of law being settled namely, as to whether a hostel attached to an educational institution can be regarded as an educational institution for the purpose of the Abkari Rules. In other words, the State is interested in taking the stand that though no foreign liquor retail shop can be granted within the distance of 400 metres from an educational institution, that it is permissible for the Stale to grant such a licence for a foreign liquor retail shop within a distance of 400 metres from the hostel attached to an educational institution. In other words, the State's concern and interest is in preserving its freedom or discretion to grant licence to a liquor shop to be located within a distance of 400 metres from a hostel attached to an educational institution. We fail to see how this would be consistent with the object of the rule. The object of the rule is to ensure that the student community is hot exposed to the vice of consumption of liquor. That consumption of liquor is constitutionally recognised as a vice is clear from the fact that it is one of the directive principles contained in Art.47 of Part IV of the Constitution. The State is required to strive to reach this constitutional goal and not function in a reverse direction. What the State is interested in is in taking the foreign liquor shop to a place nearer to the hostel. A foreign liquor retail shop is not only a place where foreign liquor is sold but also a place where it. is allowed to be consumed. We are shocked that the State does not feel concerned about protecting the student community from this vice inspite of the constitutional mandate.