Dama Seshadri Naidu, J.

Introduction:

1. Athidhi Devobhava (Taittiriya Upanishad, Shikshavalli I.20: Matrudevo bhava, pitrudevo bhava, acharyadevo bhava, athithdevo bhava. It literally means “be one for whom the Mother is God, be one for whom the Father is God, be one for whom the Teacher is God, be one for whom the guest is God.” Source : Wikipedia, accessed on 23.06.2017.): In a wintry evening a friend of yours drops in; you both while away time on pleasantries. A guest as he is, you offer him a glass of wine. You are breaking law, for you are selling liquor. Startling as it may seem, that is what the law says, at least, as the Government maintains. Perhaps, the law has been reduced—interpreted—to its barebones: reductio ad absurdum.

Facts:

2. Petitioner Alex V. Chacko, a resident of Peroor, wants to conduct the baptism ceremony for his grandson on 25.6.2017. After the ceremony, he wants to treat his guests—about 300 friends and relatives—to dinner. Alex wants to serve liquor in the dinner, in keeping with what he calls the custom followed in his community.

3. In January 2015, he celebrated his eldest daughter’s betrothal and the “Mylanji ideel.” On that occasion, when he had intended to serve liquor, the excise officials directed him to take a permit for serving liquor. Given the paucity of time, Alex did not contest the officials’ directive; instead, he complied with it: he took two permits—FL-6 licences—for 2 days, said to be as per rule 13 (6) of the Foreign Liquor Rules.

4. Chastened by his experience in 2015, this time, too, Alex approached the excise officials who reiterated what they had said in 2015. Alex’s failing to get the licence, the officials are alleged to have threatened him with searching his house and registering cases against him. To ward off that threat and to have the function conducted honouring the ‘tradition’ of his community, Alex has filed this writ petition, calling the official’s insistence on his getting licence—police harassment.

Submission:

Petitioner’s:

5. Sri C. C. Thomas, the learned Senior Counsel for Alex, has submitted that as per the G.O dated 14.12.2012, a person may possess a particular quantity of liquor. So all adult members of a family together possessing Foreign Made Foreign Liquor (FMFL) to the extent permitted in the GO cannot be an offence.

6. In elaboration, Sri Thomas has submitted that Alex may possess 2.5 litres of FMFL as per the G.O referred to above and the Ext.P1 clarificatory circular issued by the Excise Commissioner. Alex’s family has six adult members, all of whom can possess 15 litres of FMFL. All of them, according to the learned Senior Counsel, visited foreign countries on different occasions and brought along with them the permitted quantities of FMFL: 12 litres.

7. Sri Thomas has also contended that the proposed serving of liquor during the dinner on 25.06.2017 in Alex’s residence will not amount to consumption of liquor in public place to attract Section 15(C) of Abkari Act. For Alex’s house is not a public place. In the end, the learned Senior Counsel has contended that the officials’ insistence that Alex can serve liquor to his guests in his house only by taking an FL-6 license under Rule 13(6) of the F.L. Rules emanates from a gross misreading—negating the letter and spirit—of the Rule 13(6) of the Foreign Liquor Rules. Government’s:

8. The learned Government Pleader contends that Alex can serve liquor in the dinner neither in his house nor outside given the specific statutory interdiction in that regard. So long as the provisions of the Abkari Act and the Rules under the Act remain unchallenged, Alex can serve no liquor without obtaining an FL-6 licence.

9. The baptism, a public function, involves Alex’s relatives, friends, and neighbours who are part of general public and who include even children and women.

10. Elaborating on FL-6 license, the learned Government Pleader has contended that it is a special license not for sale of liquor but for serving liquor