Judgment :- Sreedharan, J. Fifth respondent in O.P. 9636 of 1993 is the appellant. He is the licensee of Arrack Shop No. 20 of Kothamangalam Range for the year 1993-94 His shop is located within the prohibited distance from Thattekad Siva Temple. But, the temple and the arrack shop belonging to the appellant are situated on cither sides of the Periyar River. The width of the Periyar River is about 200 metres. The writ petitioners approached this Court inter-alia praying for the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the State and officials of the Excise Department to remove the shop belonging to the fifth respondent-appellant herein from the prohibited distance from the temple. Learned Single Judge, by judgment dated 5-11-1993, directed the Assistant Excise Commissioner, Ernakulam to take action to shift Arrack Shop No. 20 belonging to the appellant to an unobjectionable place. This direction given by the learned Single Judge is under challenge., 2. The fact that Thattekad Siva Temple, made mention of in the Original Petition, is a "temple" as defined in Abkari Shops (Disposal in auction) rules, 1974, hereinafter referred to as "the Rules", is not in dispute. It is also the common case of parties that the shop belonging to the appellant herein is situated just on the other bank of the Periyar River and is within 400 metres from the temple. It is also the common case of panic that ferry service is being run by the Government between the two banks of the river, where the temple and the shop are situated. As per Rule 6(2) of the Rules, no toddy. arrack or foreign liquor shop shall be located in or remove to a place within 400 metres from an Educational Institution, Temple, Church, Mosque or Burial ground. So, as per this rule, the arrack shop belonging to the appellant is situated within the prohibited distance. This fact is also not in controversy. But, the contention raised by the appellant is that in calculating the distance of 400 metres, as per the Note to Rule 6(2), the basis should be the shortest pathway/lane/street/road generally used by the public. If the distance between the temple and the shop is measured through the shortest pathway, lane or road, it will be much more than 400 metres and so, it is contended, the shop will not come within the 400 metres from the temple. 3. If the distance between the temple and the shop is measured through the shortest pathway, lane or road, it will be much more than 400 metres and so, it is contended, the shop will not come within the 400 metres from the temple. 3. R.6(2) is categoric when it states that no toddy, arrack or foreign liquor shop shall be located within 400 metres from an Educational Institution, Temple, Church. Mosque or Burial ground. The intention of this rule is that no shop vending toddy, arrack or foreign liquor should be located within the prohibited distance. To help the authorities in measuring the distance, a Note is added. It says that in calculating the distance, the basis will be the shortest path way/lane/street/road generally used by she public. This does not mean that the distance, if it can be covered with the help of -i ferry boat, is not to be taken into consideration in deciding whether the shop is located within the prohibited distance. The ferry which exists, connecting the two banks, can safely be considered as the path through which a person can cross the river. The meaning of "path" as per Chambers 20th Century Dictionary is "a way todden out by the feet: a way for foot-passengers: a course, route, line along which anything moves: a course of action, conduct". This would show that "path" takes within its ambit not only a way for foot-passengers, but also a line along which anything moves. In this sense, the line along which the ferry boat moves can also be considered as a path. The distance along that path has necessarily to be measured for deciding whether the shop is situated within the prohibited distance. The distance through that path, it is common case of parties, below the prohibited distance of 400 metres. The intention of the rule making authority - is clear that the toddy, arrack or foreign liquor shop should be hated beyond 400 metres from the religious institution. The path through which one treks the distance in between is not of much importance. II the distance is to be covered through lane, then as per the Note, the shortest distance through the pathway is to be measured. If it is not through lane, then any path trekked by people should be the basis. The path through which one treks the distance in between is not of much importance. II the distance is to be covered through lane, then as per the Note, the shortest distance through the pathway is to be measured. If it is not through lane, then any path trekked by people should be the basis. If the appellant's contention is accepted, then no shop is to be removed beyond UK) metres if in between the shop and the educational institution or the religious institution a river Hows In other words, when a plot where a liquor shop is situated is separated from that in which an educational or religious institution is located, by a river or water course, Rule 6 will have no effect. Such an interpretation will defeat the very purpose of the Rule. Courts are not to interpret the rule in such a way as to make it redundant or ineffective. 4. It is trite law that an interpretation which furthers the policy of the rule making authority should be adopted. Courts ought to adopt a construction which would subserve and carry out the purpose and object of the Rules rather than defeat it. Rule 6(2) must be presumed to have been designed to effectuate a particular object of keeping the liquor shops sufficiently away from religious and educational institutions. That object is not to be thwarted on the ground that a river separates them, even though they are in very close proximity. The meaning and scope of Rule 6(2) is not to be understood or curtailed by the "Note" attached to it. In view of what has been stated above, we are in entire agreement with the learned Single judge in directing the second respondent to take effective steps to remove the shop belonging to the appellant herein to a place beyond 400 metres from the Thattekad Siva Temple. The Writ Appeal fails. It is accordingly dismissed. Learned counsel for the appellant has made an oral application under Art.134-A read with 133(1) of the Constitution of India for grant of a certificate for filing an appeal before the Supreme Court of India. In our view, the case does not involve any substantial question of law of general importance, which in our opinion, needs 10 be decided by the Supreme Court. The oral application is accordingly dismissed.