SHAJI P. CHALY, J.

1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging Ext.P11 order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 09.01.2017, whereby the FL-11 license sought for by the petitioner under the Foreign Liquor Rules, 1953 was declined. Essential facts for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows:

2. Petitioner has submitted Ext.P3 application for FL- 11 license i.e. for beer/wine parlour, which was rejected as per Ext.P4, on the ground that the distance between the gate of the hotel and the gate of St. Joseph Catholic Church, Mannanthala is only 184 metres, since as per the second proviso to Rule 13(1) of the Foreign Liquor Rules, no foreign liquor shop shall be located within 200 metres from any Educational Institution, Temple, Church, Mosque, Burial Ground etc. etc. Being aggrieved, petitioner preferred Ext.P5 revision before the State Government, which was dismissed as per Ext.P8 order.

3. Petitioner challenged Exts.P4 and P8 before this Court and as per Ext.P9 judgment, direction was issued to reconsider Ext.P3 application in the light of the principles of law laid down by a Division Bench of this Court in 'State of Kerala v. Vijayakumar' [2009 (1) KLT 578]. The 3rd respondent after conducting joint inspection with the 5th respondent, as instructed by the 2nd respondent, filed Ext.P10 report, certifying that the distance between the gate of the hotel and the gate of the alleged church is 212 metres, and accordingly, recommended the application.

4. But the 2nd respondent rejected the application vide Ext.P11, stating that some part of the road cannot be taken into account since it is within the private property belonging to the petitioner. These are the background facts projected by the petitioner to sustain the reliefs sought for in the writ petition.

5. First respondent has filed a counter affidavit justifying Ext.P11 order passed by the 2nd respondent, and contending that since the subject matter was considered elaborately by the 2nd respondent after providing sufficient opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and has arrived at a conclusion in a legalistic manner, interference of this Court may not be warranted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

6. Heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, Sri. C.C. Thomas and the learned Senior Government Pleader, Sri. P.M. Manoj, appearing for the respondents. Perused the documents on record and the pleadings put forth by the respective parties.

7. The subject issue revolves around Ext.P11 order passed by the 2nd respondent. On a reading of Ext.P11, it is clear that on the basis of the directives issued by this Court in Ext.P9 judgment in W.P.(C) No.28419 of 2016 dated 03.10.2016, a detailed investigation was conducted by the 2nd respondent through the Deputy Excise Commissioner and other officers of the Excise Department, and has arrived at a finding after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner on 19.11.2016. It is true, as per Ext.P10 report submitted by the Deputy Excise Commissioner dated 18.11.2016, the grant of license to the petitioner is recommended. According to the 3rd respondent Deputy Commissioner of Excise, the petitioner has produced a new plan demarcating the new gate of the hotel in triplicate through Circle Inspector of Excise, Thiruvananthapuram and received in the Commissionerate of Excise on 17.10.2016, as per which, the applicant has removed and closed the existing gate shown in the plan, appended to the original application, by putting up a wall in that place and changing the location of the gate. The distance between the church and the new gate has been measured through both sides of the Mannanthala-Keraladithyapuram PWD Road, and it is admeasuring 212 metres. The paramount contention advanced by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner is that, in Ext.P11 order passed by the 2nd respondent, the report of the Deputy Commissioner of Excise was not taken into account, and therefore, Ext.P11 suffers from th