The judgment established that a resident in the vicinity has standing to challenge the location of a toddy shop and relied on S.10 of the Interpretation and General Clauses Act, 1125 for interpreting the measurement of distances.

1. The petitioner has come up with this writ petition under Art.226 of the Constitution praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing respondents 2 and 3, the Assistant Commissioner of Excise, Kottayam, and the State of Kerala, respectively to take immediate necessary action to prevent the 1st respondent, the licensee of toddy shop No. 52 of Mannanam Abkari Range from conducting the said toddy shop in a building comprised in Sy. No 907/14 situated very close to his residence

2. The averment in the writ petition in substance is that though toddy shop No. 52 had all along been conducted and, even according to the specifications in the auction notification, was required, to be conducted, in a building which belonged to one Kunneparambil Padmanabhan, situated about a kilo-" metre away from Sy. No. 907/14, instead of conducting it there, it is being conducted in Sy. No 907/14. According to the petitioner, there is a lower primary school and a Guru Mandiram at a distance of less than 400 metres from the building where the toddy shop is being conducted, and, therefore, it is being done in violation of the provisions contained in sub-rules (I) and (2) of R.6 of the Kerala Abkari Shops (Disposal in auction) Rules, 1974 (the Rules). The above mentioned sub-rules of R.6 are as follows:

"(1) No licensee of any toddy, arrack or foreign liquor shop shall be permitted to sell or possess toddy, arrack or foreign liquor or coco brandy outside the local limits specified in his licence:

Provided that nothing in this sub-rule shall apply to the sale or possession of toddy, or arrack in any toddy or arrack sub-shop

(2) No toddy, arrack or foreign liquor shop other than a toddy or arrack sub-shop shall be located outside the limits notified in the Gazette under R.4. but with the previous sanction of Assistant Excise Commissioner it may be removed from one place to another within such limits. But no shop other than Foreign Liquor wholesale shop shall be located in, or removed to a place

(a) within an area declared as a project area; or

(b) within 400 metres from any School, Temple, Church, Mosque or burial ground:

Provided that the Board of Revenue may, for sufficient reasons, permit any shop to be located in or removed to a place referred to is clause (a) or clause (b) subject to such restrictions and conditions, if any, as may be imposed."

3. The 1st respondent in her counter affidavit has disputed the correctness of the averment in the writ petition that the toddy shop was being conducted in the prohibited area. According to her, there was no school, nor a place of worship, within the prohibited distance of 400 metres. It is also contended that the writ petition has been filed at the instance and instigation of one Parvathi Bhargavi, a co-owner of the property comprised in Sy. No. 904/14, who had already filed a suit O.S. No. 49 of 1980 for a perpetual injunction restraining her from using the building in that property for accommodating the toddy shop; she has also averred therein that I. A. No. 242 of 1980 in that suit, for an interim injunction, was heard and dismissed on 17 41980; and there is no ground made out for the issue of a writ of mandamus as prayed for in the writ petition.

4. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 3rd respondent, the State of Kerala, it is stated interalia that the 2nd respondent, the Assistant Excise Commissioner, Kottayam, through his subordinate officers had conducted enquiries on the basis of a petition filed by the people of the locality against the functioning of the shop in that locality, and it was found that the lower primary school and the S.N.D.P. Guru Mandiram referred to in the petition were situated more than 400 metres away from the toddy shop. In the reply affidavit filed by the petitioner it is stated inter alia that the enquiry, if any, got conducted by the 2nd respondent through his subordinates was opposed to ail principles of natural justice, and the 2nd respondent should have