The judgment establishes the interpretation of the definition of 'Church' under the Kerala Abkari Shops Disposal Rules and the applicability of the requirement of prior permission for establishing an Abkari shop under Section 232 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act.

The petitioner is a charitable society. The grievance voiced by the petitioner in the writ petition concerns the proposal of the fifth respondent to establish a Foreign Liquor I shop ('the shop') in a building situated within the limits of the sixth respondent Grama Panchayat. According to the petitioner, the building in which the fifth respondent proposes to establish the shop is situated within 200 meters from a Church which is prohibited under sub-rule (2) of Rule 7 of the Kerala Abkari Shops Disposal Rules, 2002 ('the Rules'). It is also the case of the petitioner that sub-section(2) of Section 232 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act ('the Act) requires prior permission of the Panchayat for establishing the shop and the fifth respondent has not obtained permission from the Panchayat as provided for under the said provision for establishing the shop.

2. A statement has been filed in this matter on behalf of the third respondent. The stand taken by the third respondent in the statement is that an institution called Abhayabhavan is referred to by the petitioner as a Church in the writ petition and that the said institution is not a Church, but only an old age home. As regards the permission contemplated under sub-section(2) of Section 232 of the Act, it is stated by the third respondent in the statement that the shop referred to in the petition is a shop which was existing as on 25th of November 2012 and that therefore, the said provision will not apply to it.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader as also the learned Standing Counsel for the fifth respondent.

4. The fact that Abhayabhavan referred to by the petitioner in the writ petition is located within the prohibited distance contained in sub-rule (2) of Rule 7 of the Rules is not in dispute. The issue arises for consideration is, therefore, whether the said institution can be regarded as a Church for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions contained in sub-rule (2) of Rule 7 of the Rules. The issue whether the fifth respondent is required to obtain prior permission of the Panchayat also arises for consideration.

5. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 7 of the Rules provides that no Foreign Liquor I shop shall be located within 200 meters from a Church. 'Church' is defined in Section 2(f) of the Rules thus:

" 'Church' means a public place where prayer is offered by Christians. "

As noted above, the stand of the third respondent is that Abhayabhavan referred to in the writ petition is not a Church coming within the definition of "Church" as contained in the Rules. It is the specific case of the third respondent in the statement that Abhayabhavan is an old age home. The fact that there is an old age home in the premises called Abhayabhavan is not in dispute. Even according to the petitioner, the institution referred to by the petitioner in the writ petition as a Church is not named as a Church. Three photographs produced by the petitioner along with I.A.No.5820 of 2017 indicate that there is a small place of worship within the compound of the property within which the old age home is situated. It is evident from the definition of "Church" as contained in the Rules that the word "Church" is used in the Rules to mean 'a public place where prayer is offered by the Christians'. In other words, only places of worship of Christians where the public have a right of access can be regarded as Church for the purposes of the Rules. The question whether a particular place is a place where public have a right of access is a pure question of fact. A place of worship within the compound of a property within which an old age home is situated cannot be construed prima facie as a Church within the definition of "Church" as contained in the Rules. Of course, this being a question of fact, the petitioner is free to approach a competent civil court to establish that the place in question is a public place of worship.

6. To deal with the contention raised by the