Judges : M.JAGANNADHA RAO,K.SREEDHARAN
Augustine - Appellant
Versus
Ramakrishnan - Respondent
Case No : W.A.No.1461 of 1993
Decided On : 11/18/1993
Advocates Appeared :
S.A. Nagendran (Sr. Advocate), K.B. Subhagamani & Premjit Nagendran For Appellant T.P.M. Ibrahim Khan For Respondents
Arrack Shop - Proximity to Temple - Abkari Shops (Disposal in auction) rules, 1974, Rule 6(2) - The court discussed the interpretation of Rule 6(2) which prohibits the location of liquor shops within 400 meters from religious institutions. The court emphasized that the intention of the rule is to keep liquor shops sufficiently away from religious institutions and that the presence of a river should not be used to circumvent the rule. The court upheld the decision to remove the shop beyond 400 meters from the temple.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a licensee of an arrack shop, was located within the prohibited distance from a temple. The court was approached to issue a writ of mandamus to remove the shop to an unobjectionable place.
Finding of the Court:
The court upheld the direction to remove the shop beyond 400 meters from the temple, emphasizing the intention of the rule to keep liquor shops sufficiently away from religious institutions.
Issues: Proximity of arrack shop to the temple, interpretation of Rule 6(2) of Abkari Shops (Disposal in auction) rules, 1974.
Ratio Decidendi: The interpretation of Rule 6(2) emphasized the intention to keep liquor shops sufficiently away from religious institutions, and the presence of a river should not be used to circumvent the rule.
Final Decision: The Writ Appeal was dismissed, and the court refused the oral application for a certificate to file an appeal before the Supreme Court of India.
Sreedharan, J.
Fifth respondent in O.P. 9636 of 1993 is the appellant. He is the licensee of Arrack Shop No. 20 of Kothamangalam Range for the year 1993-94 His shop is located within the prohibited distance from Thattekad Siva Temple. But, the temple and the arrack shop belonging to the appellant are situated on cither sides of the Periyar River. The width of the Periyar River is about 200 metres. The writ petitioners approached this Court inter-alia praying for the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the State and officials of the Excise Department to remove the shop belonging to the fifth respondent-appellant herein from the prohibited distance from the temple. Learned Single Judge, by judgment dated 5-11-1993, directed the Assistant Excise Commissioner, Ernakulam to take action to shift Arrack Shop No. 20 belonging to the appellant to an unobjectionable place. This direction given by the learned Single Judge is under challenge.,
2. The fact that Thattekad Siva Temple, made mention of in the Original Petition, is a "temple" as defined in Abkari Shops (Disposal in auction) rules, 1974, hereinafter referred to as "the Rules", is not in dispute. It is also the common case of parties that the shop belonging to the appellant herein is situated just on the other bank of the Periyar River and is within 400 metres from the temple. It is also the common case of panic that ferry service is being run by the Government between the two banks of the river, where the temple and the shop are situated. As per Rule 6(2) of the Rules, no toddy. arrack or foreign liquor shop shall be located in or remove to a place within 400 metres from an Educational Institution, Temple, Church, Mosque or Burial ground. So, as per this rule, the arrack shop belonging to the appellant is situated within the prohibited distance. This fact is also not in controversy. But, the contention raised by the appellant is that in calculating the distance of 400 metres, as per the Note to Rule 6(2), the basis should be the shortest pathway/lane/street/road generally used by the public. If the distance between the temple and the shop is measured through the shortest pathway, lane or road, it will be much more than 400 metres and so, it is contended, the shop will not come within the 400 metres from the temple.
3. R.6(2) is categoric when it states that no toddy, arrack or foreign liquor shop shall be located within 400 metres from an Educational Institution, Temple, Church. Mosque or Burial ground. The intention of this rule is that no shop vending toddy, arrack or foreign liquor should be located within the prohibited distance. To help the authorities in measuring the distance, a Note is added. It says that in calculating the distance, the basis will be the shortest path way/lane/street/road generally used by she public. This does not mean that the distance, if it can be covered with the help of -i ferry boat, is not to be taken into consideration in deciding whether the shop is located within the prohibited distance. The ferry which exists, connecting the two banks, can safely be considered as the path through which a person can cross the river. The meaning of "path" as per Chambers 20th Century Dictionary is "a way todden out by the feet: a way for foot-passengers: a course, route, line along which anything moves: a course of action, conduct". This would show that "path" takes within its ambit not only a way for foot-passengers, but also a line along which anything moves. In this sense, the line along which the ferry boat moves can also be considered as a path. The distance along that path has necessarily to be measured for deciding whether the shop is situated within the prohibited distance. The distance through that path, it is common case of parties, below the prohibited distance of 400 metres. The intention of the rule making authority - is clear that the toddy, arrack or foreign liquor shop should be hated beyond 400 metres from the religious institut
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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.