Judgment :- 1. The arrack shop conducted by the fourth respondent is situate within the prohibited distance from educational institutions, a Church, a Temple and a Mosque. This Original Petition has been filed for necessary directions to the Excise authority concerned to cancel the licence granted to the arrack shop in the present location, or for such other directions to compel the fourth respondent to shift the arrack shop to a place outside the prohibited area. A commissioner appointed by this Court has reported that the arrack shop is situated within the prohibited distance from such institutions. The fourth respondent did not succeed in proving that his arrack shop is situated out side the distance specified in R.6(2) (b) of the Kerala Abkari Shops (Disposal in Auction) Rules, 1974 (for short'the Rules'). 2. However, the respondents seek to justify the location of the arrack shop on the ground that the same business was conducted in a building situated just opposite to the present shop room during the previous year 1988-89. Evidently the respondents seek refuge under the second proviso to R.6(2) (b). The second proviso was inserted in the Rules by the Kerala Abkari Shops (Disposal in Auction) Amendment Rules, 1989. That proviso reads as follows: "Provided further that the toddy shop, arrack shop and Foreign Liquor retail shop shall be permitted to be located and licensed in such places where they were located and licensed in the Abkari year 1988-89 as a toddy shop or its sub-shop, an arrack shop or its sub shop, or a foreign liquor retail shop, respectively". 3. A sketch has been produced by the fourth respondent to indicate the location of the present arrack shop. Ext.R4(a) sketch shows that the two buildings (one in which the arrack business was conducted during 1988-89 and the other in which the business is being conducted now) are separated by a small road. Those buildings are located opposite to each other. Both of them are in the same survey number, though not in the same sub-division. 4. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the present shop is not located in the same "place" where it was located during 1988-89, inasmuch as the present building is separated, at least by a road, if not more. The word "place" in the proviso therefore needs interpretation. 4. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the present shop is not located in the same "place" where it was located during 1988-89, inasmuch as the present building is separated, at least by a road, if not more. The word "place" in the proviso therefore needs interpretation. Reference to meaning given in the dictionary does not help, since dictionary contains a Variety of meanings attributed to the word "place" as applicable in different contexts. I thought initially that the word "place" can be understood in the sense of "place of business" as the word is used in the proviso in the context of business. Learned Government Pleader pointed out that even that would not be helpful since business place can also have different shades of meanings depending on contexts. eg:-If somebody asks A while he is at New Delhi "where is your place of business", A may reply that "my business place is at Cochin". But the situation will be different if the same question is put to A while he is at Cochin because he may then answer "my business place is just opposite to Shipyard Office". In the first instance place of business is as large as the city of Cochin, while in the second instance it is reduced to the size of a building. Sometimes 'the amplitude of the expression "place of business" may widen into one nation or country itself. Thus the parameters of the word "place" cannot be fixed with precision or exactitude. It has to be ascertained from the facts and circumstances of each case. At any rate, the word "place" has to be understood in the special context in which the same was employed by the legislature in the proviso. No indication can be gathered from the definition of the word "place" given in S.2(21) of the Act, for, it is an inclusive definition as it includes not only buildings but vehicles and vessels as well. Learned Government Pleader contended that the legislature would definitely have intended that the word "place" should not be understood in the limited meaning as mere building because the legislature had no difficulty to employ the word "building" instead of "place" in the aforesaid proviso. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the construction of the word must be such as to achieve the object of the legislature. 5. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the construction of the word must be such as to achieve the object of the legislature. 5. What is then the object of the legislature in giving exemption through the proviso? Rules provide sale of the right to vend arrack in open auction and one who bids it for the highest amount has the preference. Over the years, this has become one of the principal sources of revenue for the Government. Even then, no Government would be prepared to encourage consumption of alcoholic drinks by its citizens. On the other hand the policy is to impose constrictions or limitations on the freedom to trade in such drinks. In the implementation of the policy the government prescribed a certain distance to be kept for such trades away from places of worship and educational institutions so as to safeguard the sanctity of such institutions. The legislature might have thought that the distance rule need not be applied with rigidity in all circumstances. In locations where such business was carried on in the previous year some laxity is shown by the legislature, and that could be the objective in exempting such places from the rigid application of the distance rule. If the building in which the liquor business was conducted during previous year happens to be destroyed and if it is not possible to put up a new building in the very site, it cannot be said that the place where the business was conducted in the previous year seized to exist. If a new building is put up in the adjoining plot to house the business, it is only reasonable to hold that the place of business remains the same despite the change of spot by a small distance. Similarly if the previous building was situated in the vicinity of the present building and the distance between the two is relatively trivial the two buildings can reasonably be held to remain in the same places for practical purposes. The answer to the question whether the new building is in a different "place" will thus depend upon the extent of distance and the other allied facts in each case. But no ready conclusion can be reached that the change in the building would automatically result in change of place also. 6. The answer to the question whether the new building is in a different "place" will thus depend upon the extent of distance and the other allied facts in each case. But no ready conclusion can be reached that the change in the building would automatically result in change of place also. 6. A contention was advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the basis of the description of the boundaries of the building as provided in the Form for issuance of licence. That is helpful only when I hold that the "place" must be treated as analogous to building. Since I have already expressed my disinclination to adopt such a narrow interpretation, the agreement based on the boundary descriptions of the building may not help the petitioner. 7. In this case the two buildings are separated only by a small road, if it is not a lane. Both buildings are situate in the same survey number, though there is a difference in the sub-division number. Admittedly there is no appreciable distance between the two. For those reasons, I am not inclined to hold that the present building is not in the same place where the business was conducted during the previous year. I dismiss this Original Petition. No costs. Issue carbon copy on usual terms.