Antony Dominic, J.

1. The petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 16847 of 2017 is the appellant, a partnership firm which has established a three-star hotel at Wadakkancherry. Till 31.03.2015, the hotel had an FL-3 licence and, thereafter, it was issued an FL-11 licence in accordance with Rule 13(11) of the Foreign Liquor Rules, 1953. The licence was renewed up to 31.03.2017. Later, the appellant applied for renewal of the licence for the year 2017-18.

2. But, in view of the Apex Court's judgment in State of Tamil Nadu and Others vs. K. Balu and Another, 2017 (1) KHC 26 (SC), the Government did not renew the licence. Again, the appellant submitted the Ext.P4 application, contending that on account of the alterations made, the distance from the National Highway is 503 metres. The appellant sought to substantiate that claim by relying on Ext.P8 report. However, the third respondent rejected the application through Ext.P10 order, stating that out of the 503 metres, 45 metres could not be considered, as it was not a pathway generally used by the public. Under these circumstances, the appellant filed the writ petition.

3. By the judgment under appeal, the learned single Judge upheld the order and further held that the parameters contained in Note-2 to Rule 13(1) of the Foreign Liquor Rules, 1953, were rightly applied to measure the distance. Yet, the learned Single Judge quashed the Ext.P10 order and directed the third respondent to consider the appellant’s application afresh in the light of Ext.P7 plan. It is this judgment that is now under challenge before us.

4. The only issue that was raised and argued by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant was that the learned single Judge erred in upholding the measurement of distance applying the parameters contained in Note-2 to Rule 13(1) of the Foreign Liquor Rules. According to him, Note-2 to Rule 13(1) of the Foreign Liquor Rules prescribes the method of measurement of distance for the purpose of ensuring that no liquor shop shall be located within the prohibited distance of 200 metres from any educational institution, temple, church, mosque, etc. For determining the 200 metre distance so prescribed alone, Note-2 is relevant, because the Note provides the norms for calculating only that distance: to be measured from gate to gate, based on the shortest pathway/lane/street/road generally used by the public.

5. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader contended that in Balu's case (supra), the Supreme Court had directed that no shop for the sale of liquor shall be situated within 500 metres from the outer edge of the national or state highway or of a service lane along the highway. He asserted that when 500 metres distance is to be determined, in the absence of any other yardstick prescribed, State is entitled to take recourse to Note-2 to Rule 13(1) of the Foreign Liquor Rules. Therefore, according to him, the learned single Judge was fully justified in upholding the measurement applying Note-2 to Rule 13(1).

6. We have considered the submissions made.

7. In Balu's case (supra), the Apex Court had issued various directions to prevent location of liquor shops, within a prescribed distance, along the side of national and state highways. Insofar as it is relevant, in paragraph 24 of the judgment, it was inter-alia ordered thus:

“24. xxxxx

(i) xxxxx

(ii) xxxxx

(iii) xxxxx

(iv) xxxxx

(v) No shop for the sale of liquor shall be (i) visible from a national or state highway; (ii) directly accessible from a national or state highway and (iii) situated within a distance of 500 metres of the outer edge of the national or state highway or of a service lane along the highway.”

8. A reading of the above direction issued by the Apex Court would show that no liquor shop shall be (i) visible from a national or state highway, (ii) directly accessible from a national or state highway and (iii) situated within a distance of 500 metres of the outer edge of national or state highway or of a service lane alon