Ramachandra Menon, J.

Proper manner of measurement of the prohibited distance between the classified institutions and concerned establishment in respect of FL 3 Licence is the core issue involved in both these appeals.

1. 2. The writ petitioner is the Managing Partner of the firm engaged in running a hotel under the name and style Hotel Ruby Arena", stated as having all the requirements to be classified under Four Star category, but classified as Three Star category -for want of necessary bar licence. Though the appellant applied for FL 3 licence on 22.09.2006, it was rejected by the Excise Commissioner as per Ext. P3 order dated 19.02.2007 on the ground that the mens hostel of the Medical College, Thiruvananthapuram is located within the prohibited distance, which, hence, was subjected to challenge in the Writ Petition.

2. 3. Various contentions were raised by the writ petitioner pointing out that the hostel is not liable to be treated as an "educational institution" as contemplated under the relevant rules; that it is situated far away from the medical college; that it is not under the control of the Education Department of the State or Central Board of Education; that grown up people are residing there; that the measurement taken by the statutory authorities from the subsidiary gate of the hostel is not at all correct or proper- as it has to be effected only from the main gate of the hostel ; that the hotel of the petitioner does not come within the prohibited distance and further that the distance has to be measured taking note of the principles set out in Ext.P5 judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court.

3. 4. The first respondent/State Government filed a counter affidavit rebutting the above contentions; simultaneously asserting that the hostel is very much part of an educational institution as declared by the Division Bench of this Court in State of Kerala vs. Sukumaran (1988 (2) KLT 261) and that the prohibited distance envisaged under the Rule 13 (3) of the Foreign Liquor Rules is the shortest pathway/lane street/road generally used by the public, as specifically pointed out in Note (2) thereunder.

5. After considering the rival contentions, the learned single Judge, placing reliance on the decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in State of Kerala vs. Sukumaran (1988 (2) KLT 261) held that the hostel is part of the educational institution and hence the distance rule contained in Rule 13(3) of the Foreign Liquor Rules very much applies to the hostel also. However, it was observed by the learned single Judge that the distance has to be measured from the main gate of the hostel to the main gate of the hotel. Taking note of the fact that the road in question has a central line and also a zebra crossing as divulged from Ext. P4 and relying on the mandate given by the Division Bench in Ext.P5 judgment, it was held that the distance had to be measured by taking the distance that a law abiding pedestrian would walk through, using the zebra cross to reach the hotel from the hostel gate. Accordingly, the impugned order was set aside and the Writ Petition was disposed of directing that the distance from the gate of the mens hostel of the Medical College, Thiruvananthapuram to the main gate of the petitioners hotel shall be re-measured in terms of the above observation and to decide the issue afresh within the time as specified therein.

4. 6. W.A.No.354 of 2008 has been preferred by the State Government and departmental authorities challenging the said verdict based on the contentions raised in their counter affidavit; whereas W.A.No. 1039 of 2008 has been filed by the writ petitioner, mainly seeking a further declaration that the hostel is not liable to be termed as an educational institution and for consequential reliefs.

5. 7. Regarding the prime contention of the writ petitioner, (the appellant in W.A.No. 1039 of 2008) that the particular hostel is not liable to be treated as an educati