Judges : JAGANNADHA RAO,SREEDHARAN
Ravindran - Appellant
Versus
George - Respondent
Case No : W.A.No. 314 of 1993
Decided On : 03/15/1993
Advocates Appeared :
P. Ravindran For Appellant
interpretation - Abkari Rules - Rule 6(2) - Note: -In calculating distance the basis will be shortest pathway/lane/street/road generally used by the public - Kerala Abkari Shops (Disposal in auction) Rules, 1974 - S.2(28) 'private street' and S.2(30) 'public street' of Kerala Municipalities Act - S.2(28) 'public roads' of Kerala Panchayat Act - interpretation of 'generally used by the public' - influence on court's decision
Fact of the Case:
The appellant challenged the location of an abkari shop, claiming it was within the prohibited distance from a church, based on the interpretation of the Note below Rule 6(2) of the Kerala Abkari Shops (Disposal in auction) Rules, 1974.
Finding of the Court:
The court agreed with the single judge's conclusion that the building in question was a mere chapel and not a church as per the Abkari Rules. The court also interpreted the meaning of 'generally used by the public' in the Note to Rule 6(2) and its application to the case.
Issues: Interpretation of the Note below Rule 6(2) of the Abkari Rules, determination of the nature of the building in question (chapel or church), and the meaning of 'generally used by the public' in the context of the prohibited distance rule.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of the Note below Rule 6(2) and the definitions of 'private street' and 'public street' in the Kerala Municipalities Act and 'public roads' in the Kerala Panchayat Act.
Final Decision: The writ appeal was dismissed due to the lack of merit.
Jagannadha Rao, CJ.
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 Rule 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 chaper 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 181/2 Ft x 141/2 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 chaper and not a church coming within the provisions of the Abkari Rules.
4. The case is bound to fail even on the basis of the distance rule. If the pathway, of which a part is marked, as found by the Commissioner is not to be treated as a pathway generally used by the public, the toddy shop will not be within the prohibited distance from the building even assuming that the same to be a church for the purpose of Abkari Rules. The question is as to what is the meaning of the 'Note' given below Rule 6(2) of the Rules. The Note reads as follows: -
"Note: -In calculating distance the basis will be shortest pathway/lane/street/road generally used by the public".
5. In our view, the words 'generally used by the public' mean the general use by the public
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.