Judgment :- 1. R.13 (3) of the Foreign Liquor Rules framed under the Abkari Act has undergone a number of amendments. The one with which this original petition is concerned is that by which a specification of distance was introduced into the Rule. By the said amendment it was prescribed that no such licence as envisaged by R.13 (3) shall be issued to hotels or restaurants which are located within 200 metres from any educational institution, temple, church, mosque or burial ground. However, renewal of licence to bars which were in existence on the date of commencement of the Amendment R.1986 may be allowed subject to the condition that objections, if any, which had been raised will be considered and decided by the Excise Commissioner. 2. The amendment came into force on 1st April 1986. The petitioner himself was an applicant for grant of a licence for his hotel under R.13 (3). However, his application was rejected by Ext.P1 dated 7-7-1987 on the ground that the building proposed by him did not satisfy the restriction regarding distance from educational/religious institution. When his application was rejected as per Ext.P1, the petitioner became a pro-bono publico litigant. He has now diverted his energies for the public good and has turned himself to be a champion of educational/religious institutions and those attending the same. The Petitioner has gone to the other extreme and wants the saving of existing licences as on 1-4-1986 to be quashed, thereby levying a total embargo on the conduct of any bar in hotels/ restaurants within 200 metres from the categories of places mentioned in R.13 (3). Petitioner's challenge is thus to the second part of the amendment brought in in 1986. He is not presently aggrieved by the first part and has no objection to a distance rule being imposed with regard to bars near educational institutions, temples, churches, mosques or burial grounds. Of course be has a challenge to Ext.P1 on facts to which I shall advert to later. His grievance at present is that even existing bars ought not to be allowed to continue and he pleads discrimination in support of his contention. Petitioner's contention is that bars in hotels/ restaurants are similarly situated. The period when the bar commenced its operation is immaterial. His grievance at present is that even existing bars ought not to be allowed to continue and he pleads discrimination in support of his contention. Petitioner's contention is that bars in hotels/ restaurants are similarly situated. The period when the bar commenced its operation is immaterial. So long as it is a bar and it is situate near one of the institutions mentioned, it is obnoxious and the very purpose of the amendment is being defeated by allowing existing bars to continue their operation. The latter part of the amendment of 1986 is therefore violative of Art.14 of the Constitution. Petitioner refers to various decisions to submit that specification of time with reference to a particular matter is obnoxious to the right of f quality guaranteed by R.14, 3. In deciding whether there is any hostile discrimination or not, the question is whether there is any reasonable classification adopted by the impugned provision. If the classification of bars into existing bars and newly opened bars is a reasonable one, the classification will not be struck down under Art.14. The question is not whether any particular date is fixed as forming a water shed between bars. The question is whether the classification is rational and reasonable. 4. The object in bringing about the distance rule is to keep away bars from certain pieces sanctified by reason of their being dedicated to religion, education or ancestors. This rule was introduced with regard to bars and hotels only with effect from 1-4-1986. Now R.13 (3) prescribes very stringent qualifications to entitle a hotel to be granted a bar licence. A heavy licence fee is collected. The hotel must have ten lettable rooms, with 50 per cent of them having attached bathrooms. There should also be sufficient number of common bathrooms. Atleast two rooms shall be air conditioned. All the rooms should be well furnished with fans. There should be a separate dining room and bar room. There should be neat kitchen serving wholesome food. Telephone facility is obligatory. These are all conditions precedent before any applicant can aspire for a bar licence. Atleast two rooms shall be air conditioned. All the rooms should be well furnished with fans. There should be a separate dining room and bar room. There should be neat kitchen serving wholesome food. Telephone facility is obligatory. These are all conditions precedent before any applicant can aspire for a bar licence. In making an amendment to the rule providing a distance restriction, it is not unreasonable it the framers of the rule took into account these stringent conditions and the large number of cases in which the hotel owners must have strained themselves to comply with the aforesaid conditions, aspiring for a bar licence. Considerable amounts of money must have been spent for which proper return may be available only if a bar licence is an added attraction. If such persons are to be deprived of their existing licence by a subsequently introduced rule, which they could not have anticipated, it might lead to great hardship to the owners with resultant failures in business, difficulties to labour and various other consequences. It is therefore, well understandable if the rule making authority took into account such hardship and the severe consequences that may follow on imposition of the distance rule on existing bars and hotels, and made an exception in their favour. The classification appears to be reasonable. The date 1-4-1986 is not an arbitrary date, inasmuch as the rule itself was published only in February 1986 to come into force on 1-4-1986. 5. It is not as if there is blanket exclusion is favour of all existing bars and hotels. Even there, the framers of the rule have taken care to see that such licences will be continued subject to consideration of objections already raised in regard to their continuance, by the Excise Commissioner. It is open to the Excise Commissioner therefore, even in such cases, to refuse to renew a licence if the circumstances of the case warranted. 6. The classification made in favour of existing bars as on 1-4-1986 is therefore an eminently reasonable one and it is in the public interest. It has also to be noted at this stage that Government is not bound to make an all inclusive provision in order to salvage the distance rule. 6. The classification made in favour of existing bars as on 1-4-1986 is therefore an eminently reasonable one and it is in the public interest. It has also to be noted at this stage that Government is not bound to make an all inclusive provision in order to salvage the distance rule. It is up to them to exclude such categories from the rule as may lead to hardship, which may not merely be to the owner but also to the working classes employed in the hotel. When the Legislature is entitled to make classification as desirable in the circumstances, it need not act on the principle of all or nothing for the purpose. Reference in connection may be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Gujarat v. Shri Ambica Mills, AIR 1974 S.C.1300. The challenge to the second part of the amendment introduced in 1986 to R.13 (3) therefore, fails. 7. Petitioner has a case that Ext.P1 is not legal inasmuch as his hotel does not come within the mischief of the distance rule, the distance actually measured being 230 metres and not less than 200 metres. This is a factual aspect of the matter. If really the distance of the petitioner's hotel from any educational/ religious institution is over 200 metres, it will be open to the petitioner to make appropriate representation in that regard before the first respondent. The petitioner is given liberty to make such representation to the first respondent. If any such representation is made within a period of one month from today, the first respondent shall apply his mind to the said representation and pass orders in the matter with all expedition, after notice to and bearing the petitioner and uninfluenced by anything stated in the order Ext. P1. The original petition is disposed of as above. No costs. Issue carbon copy on usual terms.