R. Basant, J.

1. Are the amendments to Rule 2(n) and Rule 9(2) of the Kerala Abkari Shops Disposal Rules, 2002 (for short `the Rules') brought in by Ext.P3 Notification consequent to the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Kerala v. Unni (2007 (1) K.L.T. 151) and the later Notification - Ext.P4, legal valid and constitutional? Do they and the consequent prosecutions initiated against the petitioners herein deserve to be quashed? These are the questions that arise for consideration in these proceedings.

2. To the crucial and vital facts first. The petitioners are allegedly the licensees and their employees of toddy shops. They face prosecutions for offences punishable, inter alia, under Secs.57(a) and 56(b) of the Kerala Abkari Act (for short `the Act'). The crux of the allegations raised against them is that toddy which was allegedly kept in their premises for sale was found to contain ethyl alcohol in excess of 8.1%. The prosecution alleges that the ethyl alcohol present in excess of 8.1% in toddy is not a natural ingredient of toddy and is a foreign ingredient and that the same enhances the intoxicating quality of toddy kept in their possession for sale by the petitioners. It is further alleged that this amounts to violation of the conditions of licence issued to the petitioners for sale of toddy.

3. The definition of 'the concept of law' has been a vexing problem of jurisprudence. It may be safe to understand law as a set of rules of human behaviour and conduct, which are enforceable and which represent the quintessence of the trained (not lay) commonsense of the community and which seek to attain the result of harmony in society. Such understanding of the concept of law whether it be constitutional law, statutory law subordinate legislation or precedential law is essential for the law maker, the law enforcer and the law interpreter. One who attempts to interpret the law whether statutory or subordinate or to subject the same to judicial review cannot undertake the mission without being conscious of what law is and what law ought to be.

4. That takes me to the first point. The soul of the provision of law which is to be interpreted or reviewed judicially has to be understood by the interpreter. The mischief which it seeks to prevent has got to be understood before any attempt is made to interpret the law or subject the same to judicial review.

5. The purpose behind the relevant provisions and the amendments in question are very clear and unambiguous. Notwithstanding Art. 47 of the Constitution, either because of the acceptance of what is regarded as the inevitable nature of the male species of the human being who allegedly loves inebriation or because of monetary considerations of the State anxious to fill its coffers, prohibition has not been introduced and enforced in the State of Kerala. Manufacture, distribution and sale of liquor is permitted, though under very strict regulations. Such manufacture and sale can only be in strict compliance with the provisions of the regulatory statute the Kerala Abkari Act. No person has a fundamental right to carry on trade in liquor. The State has the monopoly of controlling the manufacture and sale of liquor. It is the burden of the welfare State to ensure that consumers have the opportunity to get unadulterated and healthy alcoholic beverages, once it chooses to permit such sale under strict regulation and control.

6. Manufacture and sale of arrack stands prohibited in the State of Kerala with the introduction of Sec.8 of the Kerala Abkari Act. Sale of toddy is permitted. With the introduction of Sec.8 of the Kerala Abkari Act. Sale of toddy is permitted. With the ban of arrack the common man who cannot afford Indian Made Foreign Liquor has to fall back on toddy to satisfy his thirst for alcoholic drinks. It is submitted at the Bar with the help of facts and figures that the total quantity of toddy that can possibly be produced from the trees from which toddy tapping is lice