JUDGMENT K.G. Balakrishnan, J. 1. Petitioners are the President and the Joint Secretary of Thattekad Siva Temple. Petitioners contend that the 5th respondent is conducting an arrack shop within 100 metres from the Siva Temple. Petitioners allege that thousands of devotees including women and children are worshipping in the temple and the presence of arrack shop causes inconvenience to the worshippers. Petitioners also allege that the arrack shop and the customers who visit there Pollute the science atmosphere of the temple and its premises. Petitioners further allege that the arrack shop is within the prohibited distance as contemplated under R.6(2) of the Kerala Abkari Shops (Disposal in Auction) Rules. 2. The 4th respondent the Excise Inspector has filed a statement. The right to vend arrack in respect of shop Nos. 13 to 26 in Group No. 11 of Kothamangalam Range was give to 5 persons. The 5th respondent applied for licence to locate A. S.20/93 - 94 in a building situated in Sy. No. 499/1 of Keerampara village. The Excise Inspector recommended the proposed site. According to the Kerala Abkari Shops (Disposal in Auction) Rules, 1974 in calculating the distance the basis will be the shortest pathway/Lane/Street/Road generally used by the public and the same will be measured from gate to gate. Siva temple is situated in the opposite bank of the river 'Periyar' and the alleged arrack shop is located in the other side of the river. So the shop is not within the prohibited distance and is not causing any nuisance to the worshippers. 3. The 5th respondent also filed a counter affidavit and contends that the shop is not within the prohibited distance of Siva temple. 4. I heard the petitioners counsel, counsel for the 5th respondent and also the Government Pleader. The relevant portion of R.6(2)(a) of Chap.5 of the Abkari Shops (Disposal in Auction) Rules reads as follows: "6.(2)(a) No toddy, arrack or foreign liquor shop, shall be located outside the limits notified in the Gazette under R.4, but with the previous sanction of Assistant Excise Commissioner it may be removed from one place to another within such limits. The relevant portion of R.6(2)(a) of Chap.5 of the Abkari Shops (Disposal in Auction) Rules reads as follows: "6.(2)(a) No toddy, arrack or foreign liquor shop, shall be located outside the limits notified in the Gazette under R.4, but with the previous sanction of Assistant Excise Commissioner it may be removed from one place to another within such limits. But no toddy, arrack or foreign liquor retail shop shall be located in, or removed to, a place (i) within an area declared as a project area, or (ii) within 400 metres from an Educational Institution, Temple, Church, Mosque or Burial ground, or (iii) xxx xxx xxx." A note is appended to the rule which reads as: "In calculating distance the basis will be shortest pathway/lane/street/road generally used by the public". 5. In this case the arrack shop is by the side of Periyar river and on the opposite side of the river there is the Thattekad Siva temple. Admittedly, the width of the river is less than 400 metres. So the short question is whether the arrack shop is within 400 metres of the Thattekad Siva temple. Counsel for the 5th respondent and the Government Pleader argued that in view of the note appended to the rule the distance could be calculated through the shortest pathway / lane / street / road and as there is no pathway / lane / street / road the temple is deemed to be beyond 400 metres. Admittedly, there is a ferry service at this point. The people in the locality and other travellers cross the river at this point using the ferry service. So the question is whether this ferry service is to be treated as pathway / lane / street / road. The object of the rule is that within the distance of the arrack shop there shall not be any temple, church, mosque, burial ground or educational institutions as it may cause nuisance to the proper functioning of these institutions. The note appended to the rule is only a guidance for interpreting the rule. Merely because ferry service is not mentioned in the note it cannot be contended that the temple is beyond the distance of 400 metres mentioned in R.6(2)(a)(ii). 6. There are innumerable judicial decisions that the chief duty of court faced with the problems of statutory interpretation is to discover the intention of the Parliament. Merely because ferry service is not mentioned in the note it cannot be contended that the temple is beyond the distance of 400 metres mentioned in R.6(2)(a)(ii). 6. There are innumerable judicial decisions that the chief duty of court faced with the problems of statutory interpretation is to discover the intention of the Parliament. The intention of the rule making authority is that there shall not be any arrack shop within the prohibited distance of educational institutions and places of worship. So, there is nothing wrong in considering the ferry service just as pathway / lane / street or road for calculating the distance. If such an interpretation is given it does not lead to any absurdity or ambiguity. If on the other hand, a contrary view is taken it may lead to an absurd situation where if the shop and place of worship are on either side of a small channel, technically it will not be violative on R.6(2) of the Abkari shops (Disposal in Auction) Rules. So, in my view, arrack shop No. 20 is within the prohibited distance of Thattekad Siva Temple. 7. The 2nd respondent is directed to take further action in the matter to shift the arrack shop No. 20 to an unobjectionable place. Steps in this regard shall be taken after affording the 5th respondent reasonable time to shift the shop. Original Petition is disposed of as stated above.