The Brethren Assembly Hall qualifies as a 'Church' under the Kerala Abkari Act, serving as a legitimate place of Christian worship, protected by constitutional rights.

JUDGMENT :

S. MANU, J.

1. Petitioner claims to be a congregation following Holy Bible as the only doctrinal scripture of Christianity and involving themselves in praying and worshipping God without any intervention of any mediators. Petitioner has constructed a building within the limits of Angamaly Municipality in a property purchased in 1982. According to them, it is a Church as defined under the provisions of the Rules framed under the Kerala Abkari Act. On coming to know that the 6^th respondent was proposing to start a bar in a building situated about 80 meters from the petitioner's building, they raised objections. They submitted objections before the Excise Commissioner and the Assistant Excise Commissioner, Ernakulam.

2. Petitioner approached this Court in W.P. (C)No.12860/2008. By judgment dated 11.4.2008 the writ petition was disposed of directing the Secretary, Department of Taxes to consider the objections. The Secretary thereafter closed the matter as no application for license by the 6^th respondent was pending before the Excise Commissioner. According to the petitioner, thereafter an application was submitted by the 6^th respondent for license. Circle Inspector of Excise recommended that the Brethren Assembly Hall may not be considered as a Church. While forwarding the application, the Assistant Excise Commissioner and Joint Excise Commissioner requested for clarification as to whether the Brethren Assembly Hall will come within the ambit of the definition of Church in the Foreign Liquor Rules. The 2^nd respondent considered the issue and by an order dated 7.12.2008 found that the Brethren Assembly Hall will fall under the definition of Church and rejected the application of the 6^th respondent. The 7^th respondent filed a revision petition before the Government against the order rejecting the application for license. In the hearing held before the 1^st respondent, petitioner and respondent No.6 appeared and made submissions. Thereafter the 1^st respondent passed an order on 6.10.2009. Petitioner challenged the said order in W.P.(C)No.29167/2009. This Court by judgment dated 23.2.2010 disposed of the writ petition by setting aside the order passed by the 1^st respondent. First respondent was directed to pass fresh orders after hearing the parties and adverting to the documents produced and contentions urged.

3. While so the 6^th respondent filed a complaint before the 8^th respondent regarding the exemption granted to the petitioner's institution from payment of property tax. The petitioner approached this Court in W.P.(C)No.16025/2010 alleging that the Secretary of the Municipality had revoked the exemption without any notice. By judgment dated 28.5.2010 the said writ petition was disposed of by this Court. This Court noticed the statement of the Standing Counsel for the Municipality that no orders were passed for withdrawing the exemption. Hence, it was clarified that it was up to the petitioner to file a