SHAJI P. CHALY, J.

1. The challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P10 order issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Excise, Thrissur, the 3rd respondent herein, dated 26.04.2017, whereby the renewal of license sought for by the petitioner in respect of FL-11 license under Foreign Liquor Rules for the year 2017-18 is rejected in accordance with the principles of law laid down by the apex court in 'State of Tamil Nadu and Others v. K. Balu and Another' [2017 (1) KHC 26 (SC)], and seeking other consequential reliefs. Necessary facts encapsulated for disposal of the writ petition are as follows:

2. Petitioner is a partnership firm conducting a three star classified hotel at Wadakkancherry, which originally obtained an FL-3 license, which was in force till 31.03.2015. Thereafter, petitioner was issued with Ext.P2 FL-11 license in accordance with Rule 13(11B) of the Foreign Liquor Rules introduced on 30.12.2014. The license was being renewed up to 31.03.2017. Thereafter, seeking renewal of Ext.P2 license for the year 2017-18, an application was submitted, acknowledged by Ext.P3. However, the license was closed on 01.04.2017, stating that the hotel is situated within 500 metres from State Highway No.22, Wadakkancherry - Shornur sector. Thereupon, petitioner submitted Ext.P4 application by making certain alterations to the premises, and constructing a new road within the compound, and making the entry to the hotel, in a different manner. Therefore, according to the petitioner, thus it could secure a distance of 503 metres, evident from Ext.P8 report of the 3rd respondent.

3. However, the 3rd respondent is of the opinion that, out of 503 metres, 45 metres cannot be taken into account, since it is not a pathway generally used by the public, and accordingly, rejecting the renewal of license as per Ext.P10 order, served on the petitioner on 17.05.2017.

4. According to the petitioner, the stand of the 3rd respondent with respect to the measurement conducted is illegal, because there is no direction issued by the apex court in the judgment in 'State of Tamil Nadu and Others v. K. Balu and Another' [2017 (1) KHC 26 (SC)], the particular manner by which the measurement is to be carried out to ascertain the distance of 500 metres from the Highway to the entry of the hotel. Anyhow, petitioner submitted Ext.P6 application by closing the gate in controversy and making the entry from a Municipal road as per Ext.P7 plan.

5. It is the case of the petitioner that, as per Ext.P8 report, through the municipal road, the distance from the highway to the gate of the hotel in question is 505 metres, however, the same is declined, stating that there is objection from the residents of the housing colony by the side of the municipal road. Thereupon, petitioner submitted Ext.P9 application, requesting to consider either Ext.P4 or Ext.P6 application and to pass an order, since as per the application submitted by the petitioner, petitioner is entitled to get renewal of Ext.P2 license, however, no orders are passed there under. Other contentions are raised by the petitioner with respect to the illegality in conducting the measurement, and the non-consideration of the law laid down by the apex court in the afore-quoted judgment in its letter and spirit. Therefore, according to the petitioner, petitioner is entitled to get the license renewed since there is no violation of the distance rule prescribed by the apex court in the judgment in 'K. Balu' (supra), by calculating the distance with the State highway in question.

6. Heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Government Pleader and perused the documents on record and the pleadings put forth by the petitioner.

7. The paramount contention advanced by Sri. C.C. Thomas, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner is that, in order to carry out the measurement to identify the 500 metres distance prescribed by the apex court in its judgment in 'K. Balu' (supra), the parametres provid