1. The petitioner who has established a three star hotel at West Nada, Guruvayoor is aggrieved by the communication issued by the Government as per Ext.P3 rejecting the application for grant of FL-3 licence.

2. The description of the hotel in the writ petition shows that it is having 65 rooms along with 2 Banquet halls and the Ministry of Tourism, Government of India has given it the star classification as per Ext.P1 order.

3. They applied for licence to open a bar, as per Ext.P2 application dated 15/04/2008. It is pointed out that the same is situated nearly 400 metres from the Guruvayoor Temple and even after reckoning the 100 metres of freezed zone around the Temple, the same is situated at a distance of 288 metres. Altogether, there are 3 hotels having FL-3 licences near Guruvayoor Temple and according to the petitioner, compared to those 3 star hotels, the distance to the petitioner's hotel, namely, Hotel Mayura Residency is more from the Temple. All the three hotels are situated in front of the Temple in the East Nada.

4. It is pointed out that a large number of tourists and travellers are visiting Guruvayoor and, therefore, the petitioner thought of having a bar licence.

5. It is pointed out that the decision taken by the Government as per Ext.P3 is illegal in the sense that the rejection of the application on the ground that Guruvayoor is a prominent pilgrim centre and the local need does not justify the grant of licence is arbitrary and discriminatory.

6. The respondents have filed separate counter affidavits. The Guruvayoor Devaswom which is impleaded as the additional fourth respondent has also filed a counter affidavit.

7. Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner Shri C.C.Thomas, the learned Government Pleader Smt.N.Sudha Devi and Shri V.Krishna Menon for the Guruvayoor Devaswom. The learned Senior Counsel Shri C.C.Thomas submitted that the hotel is situated beyond the prohibited distance prescribed under Rule 13(3) of the Foreign Liquor Rules i.e.200 metres from the Temple and, therefore, no objection can be taken on that score. It is pointed out that the finding that the local need do not justify the grant of licence cannot be accepted in the light of the fact that three bar hotels are functioning on the Eastern Nada. It is further pointed out that as the conduct of the bar hotels in the locality is not prohibited, the Government could not have taken recourse to public interest or other similar reasons to deny the licence to the petitioner as the same will be discriminatory. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decision of this Court in O.P.No.11291/1998 produced as Ext.P4, and that of the Apex Court in Khoday Distilleries Ltd and Others v. State of Karnataka and Others [(1995) 1 SCC 574]. It is pointed out that the authorities concerned in the Excise Department have recommended Ext.P2 application for issuance of a licence and as the petitioner conforms to all the conditions provided under the Rule, he has the right to get the licence.

8. Per Contra, the learned Government Pleader pointed out that Guruvayoor is not a tourist centre but it is a well-known pilgrim centre and in the light of the enabling provision of Rule 13A of the Foreign Liquor Rules read with Clause 22 of the Conditions under FL-3 licence, the order Ext.P3 is well founded. It is pointed out that the licence can be refused on grounds of public interest or expediency and that aspect has been considered by the Government. There were objections from the Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing Committee and the Guruvayoor Brahmana Samooham against granting bar licence to the hotel near to the Temple. Being a prominent pilgrim centre in South India, the grant of a bar licence in such a holy place is against the local needs i.e. against the interest of devotees and public. The complaint of the Administrator, Guruvayoor Devaswom was also considered by the Government while taking the decision.

9. The learned Standing Co