JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. 1. Hotels and restaurants in Kerala with FL-3 licence were allowed to sell liquor in the Bar under Rule 28 of the Foreign Liquor Rules (hereinafter called "the Rules") from sun rise to midnight i.e. from 6 a.m. to 12 p.m. However, an amendment was introduced to this Rule with effect from 18.4.2002 prescribing different working hours for FL-3 Hotels/Restaurants functioning in Panchayat and Municipal areas on the one side and such Hotels/Restaurants functioning in Corporation limits on the other side. While in Municipal and Panchayat areas Bar Hotels were allowed to sell liquor from 8' O clock in the morning till 11.00 in the night, for Hotels/Restaurants in Corporation area, time fixed for business was from 9' O clock in the morning to 12.00 in the night. This Rule was challenged by the Hotels in Corporation areas contending that fixation of different time for commencement of business is discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petitions holding that the classification made by the Government based on location of hotels i.e. between Panchayat/Municipal areas on the one side and the Corporation on the other side, has no rational nexus with the object of the legislation i.e. to achieve reduction of availability of liquor in the State to reduce consumption which according to the State is part of it's Abkari policy. The learned Single Judge after holding that the Rule is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, left to the Government to decide uniform working hours for Bar Hotels functioning in Panchayat/Municipal areas and also in Corporation areas. It is against this judgment two Writ Appeals are filed by the State and another by a Hotel owner. We have heard Senior Government Pleader for the State, counsel appearing for the appellant in the connected appeal and also counsel appearing for respondents and the various counsel appearing for the parties impleaded. 2. It is against this judgment two Writ Appeals are filed by the State and another by a Hotel owner. We have heard Senior Government Pleader for the State, counsel appearing for the appellant in the connected appeal and also counsel appearing for respondents and the various counsel appearing for the parties impleaded. 2. When the appeals came up for hearing on 21.8.2012, we felt that if Government is earnest about implementation of Abkari policy in the State, which according to the Government is possible by reducing working hours of Bar Hotels and since the learned Single Judge also directed the Government to fix rationally uniform working hours for Bar Hotels all over Kerala, the right thing that Government should do is not to permit sale of liquor in any Bar Hotel during working hours i.e. up to 5 p.m. in the State. Even though through interim order dated 21.8.2012 we sought the opinion of the Government before final decision in the appeals, Government has filed a report stating that a policy decision can be taken by the Government "after consultation with stakeholders and assessing the needs of the society". Even though Government has accepted the suggestion of the High Court that prohibition of sale of liquor during working hours until 5' O clock in the evening will certainly reduce the consumption of liquor in the State, Government does not want to hurry up a decision and has sought time from his court to take decision and communicate the same. However, we do not think we should wait for decision by the Government because fixation of working hours is always a policy matter which is within the domain of the Government on which court has no say. Moreover, from Media reports on judgments of this court pertaining to Abkari cases, we notice that Government is very sensitive to the High Court expressing views on Abkari policy of the Government. There can be no controversy that not only in Abkari matters, policy decisions are always with the Government and court has no role in it. Moreover, from Media reports on judgments of this court pertaining to Abkari cases, we notice that Government is very sensitive to the High Court expressing views on Abkari policy of the Government. There can be no controversy that not only in Abkari matters, policy decisions are always with the Government and court has no role in it. However, when the policy is enacted in the form of law, whether as Act or Rule, and when the validity of it is questioned before the High Court, the High Court has a duty in exercise of judicial review to examine whether the policy translated into law has transgressed the limits of the Constitution justifying interference by the court. Therefore, it is in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution the court happens to examine correctness of policy decisions of the Government in the course of considering the legality of it's implementation. We also wish to express the view that Judges are humble citizens of this country who have a right to express their opinion in the judgments while deciding the cases reaching the court. Even when inter-party matters are decided by the court, the court will always keep in mind the interest of the public and the society at large and as far as possible no judgment rendered by the court should adversely impact public interest. Media considers some value for Judges' views and that is why they report the same. We wish Ministers and political leaders will appreciate this position and show tolerance to the views expressed by the Judges in the course of deciding cases, whether to their liking or not. 3. When the interim order of this court dated 21.8.2012 directing the Government to consider prohibition of sale of liquor in Bars up to 5 in the evening got published in the newspapers, a Non-Governmental Organisation (NGO) working for liquor prohibition in the State and some Bar owners filed applications before this court for impleading as additional respondents, which are allowed by us. We have heard counsel appearing for the additional respondents impleaded also. We have heard counsel appearing for the additional respondents impleaded also. While the case of the NGO is for enforcement of court's suggestion prohibiting liquor consumption and sale during working hours in the day time which according to them will help to a large extent reduction of consumption of alcohol, the case of the impleaded Bar owners is that their business will be affected and Hotels exclusively serving foreign tourists holding only Beer Parlour licence will be worst hit. The specific position canvassed on behalf of the latter category is that Beer Parlour licence is issued basically for meeting the needs of the foreign tourists whose habit is to drink low content alcohol like Beer and Wine during day time. Adv. Sri.Basil Attipetty, one of the counsel appearing, even cited Bible, Quran and the teachings of Sree Narayanaguru in support of the position canvassed that all religions are opposed to people consuming liquor. We have already expressed the view that fixation of working hours of Bar Hotels is exclusively a policy matter of the Government and so long as it is not discriminatory, there is no scope for interference. Further, while respecting religious beliefs of all communities, we are not entitled to apply the same while deciding the case before us, however noble the principles of religion may be because we are governed only by the Constitution and the laws made thereunder. The apprehension of the Beer Parlour licence holders that their business in the hotel essentially catering to the needs of foreign tourists will be affected has force. We do not think Government will have any difficulty in drawing a distinction between hotels serving mainly foreign tourists which will be reflected in the foreign exchange earnings and to exempt them even when regular Bar Hotels are prohibited from functioning during day time up to 5' O clock. After hearing counsel appearing for all parties, we do not find any justification to interfere with the judgment of the learned Single Judge because after considering various decisions of the Supreme Court, particularly by applying the test in MAHALAKSHMI SUGAR MILLS CO. LTD. Vs. After hearing counsel appearing for all parties, we do not find any justification to interfere with the judgment of the learned Single Judge because after considering various decisions of the Supreme Court, particularly by applying the test in MAHALAKSHMI SUGAR MILLS CO. LTD. Vs. UNION OF INDIA reported in (AIR 2009 SC 792) the learned Single Judge held that different working hours fixed for Bar Hotels located in Municipal and Panchayat areas and those located in Corporation areas has no nexus to the object sought to be achieved i.e. reduction of consumption of alcohol. 4. Senior Government Pleader appearing for the appellants submitted that the object of commencement of liquor sale in Bar Hotels within the Corporation area at 9 a.m. as against 8 a.m. for Bar Hotels in Panchayat/Municipal areas is to reduce consumption of liquor in the State. The learned Single Judge rejected the contention outright and we do not find any justification to take a contrary view because delaying commencement of business by an hour in the few Corporation areas in the State is not going to reduce any consumption of liquor in the State. Even though learned Single Judge found that there is a rational basis for categorising Panchayat and Municipal areas on the one side and the Corporation areas on the other side, we do not find any significance for the location of the Bar Hotel so far as sale of liquor is concerned. All corporation areas are surrounded by Municipal or Panchayat areas where the liquor sale in Bar Hotels is permitted from 8 a.m. onwards. Therefore, whoever wants to drink liquor at 8 a.m. from a Corporation area, it is a matter of his traveling a few kilometres to reach a Bar Hotel in the neighbouring Municipal or Panchayat area. Therefore, the only way to achieve the policy of the Government i.e. to reduce consumption is to make available liquor only at limited periods in all Bar Hotels all over the State. All Bar Hotels, irrespective of their location in Panchayat, Municipal or Corporation area, are treated in the same way by the Government by collecting licence fee of Rs.22 lakhs per annum and the liquor sold to them is also at the same rate by the very same Government agency which is the Beverages Corporation. All Bar Hotels, irrespective of their location in Panchayat, Municipal or Corporation area, are treated in the same way by the Government by collecting licence fee of Rs.22 lakhs per annum and the liquor sold to them is also at the same rate by the very same Government agency which is the Beverages Corporation. It is absolutely for the consumer to choose the Bar Hotel for consumption of liquor and not for the State to assume that people from Panchayat/Municipal areas will drink only from local Bars and similarly those from the Corporation areas will confine themselves to the local Bars. The consumers go to Bar Hotels of their liking based on their capacity and the tariff and services rendered by the Hotel. Therefore, in order to provide a level field for operation, all should be given equal treatment i.e. by providing uniform time schedule for commencement and closure of business probably with the exception of service to foreign tourists residing in hotels. We are in complete agreement with the reasoning of the learned Single Judge in the ultimate conclusion that fixation of different time of business for Bar Hotels in Municipal/Panchayat areas on the one hand and for those in the Corporation areas on the other hand does not serve the purpose of achieving the objective of the policy i.e to reduce consumption of liquor in the Sate. We, therefore, dismiss all the Writ Appeals. 5. Before parting with the subject, having regard to the interim order passed by us on 21.8.2012 expressing the view that prohibition of sale of liquor in Bar Hotels during working hours i.e. up to 5 p.m. will reduce consumption of liquor in the State, we feel obliged to give our final views in the matter, whatever be it's value for the Government while considering the issue. Alcohol as an enjoyment is consumed while people relax in the evening after their work and no man in his right sense will consume alcohol while at work. However, people who are in the habit of excessive drinking turn out to be alcoholics in the course of time and they will reach a stage when alcohol only can keep them normal without shivering. It is mainly this category of people who consume alcohol in the morning hours. However, people who are in the habit of excessive drinking turn out to be alcoholics in the course of time and they will reach a stage when alcohol only can keep them normal without shivering. It is mainly this category of people who consume alcohol in the morning hours. Providing liquor in the morning in every Bar Hotel in the State will certainly encourage drinking during working hours, which will not only affect work, but will in the course of time lead to alcoholism in the consumer. Additional respondent impleaded produced newspaper reports showing that as many as 1200 cases for drunken driving are booked in Kochin area alone in the course of 9 months. Since there is no check on alcohol consumption except in the case of drivers, anybody can guess how many people and even students consume alcohol from Bar Hotels during working hours affecting work and studies. Abkari policy need not always be directed to total prohibition. However, the policy in our view, should be such as to encourage people to develop healthy and refined habits in drinking befitting of a civilized society which has no place for both physically and mentally degenerated alcoholics. Reports of liver serosis, mental disorders and crime committed by alcoholics are very common. What we feel the Government should consider is restraint in consumption and sale of liquor in the State. Prohibition of consumption of alcohol by any one during work, whether it be in Government or private sector or in self-employment, which in the normal course is up to 5' O clock, will justify closure of Bar Hotels until 5.00 in the evening. In order to achieve the objective of reduction in consumption, not only sale of liquor should be prohibited until 5' O clock by Bar Hotels, but consumption as well should be prohibited providing for punishment even for consumers. The respondents have apprehended that keeping open the retail outlets of Beverages Corporation during day time will defeat the purpose of closure of Bars during office hours. This apprehension is also answered by our above suggestion that what is to be prohibited is essentially consumption during working hours, that is up to 5 p.m. Therefore, sale of liquor in bottles during day time will not stand in the way of prohibition of loose sale in Bar Hotels for ready consumption. This apprehension is also answered by our above suggestion that what is to be prohibited is essentially consumption during working hours, that is up to 5 p.m. Therefore, sale of liquor in bottles during day time will not stand in the way of prohibition of loose sale in Bar Hotels for ready consumption. In any case these are all matters for detailed examination by the Government and we have only expressed our opinion. We are sure Government will keep all these in mind while deciding the matter. We once again reiterate that Government is not at all bound by our observations and views and it is for them to consider the same for whatever be it's worth, which we have expressed in the interest of the people of the State as a whole.