JUDGMENT : Dama Seshadri Naidu, J. 1. This writ petition, once again, brings into focus the issue of the distance-norm in establishing retail liquor outlets. To be precise, the issue is how the distance between a liquor outlet and an educational institution with many access points to be reckoned. 2. The petitioners are the licencees of Toddy Shop Nos. 91 to 95 in Group No. 17 of Cherthala Excise Range. Shop No. 93 is the subject of the present lis. The shop was set up in a particular building till 2007, when it was shifted to another location with the leave of the authorities. The record reveals that shifting was occasioned because the landlord wanted to sell his property. Soon thereafter, in view of the difficulties the licencees faced with the new landlord, they once again applied to the authorities to shift the shop to a new location. They did obtain the permission but could not shift the shop, given the public protest in the proposed area. 3. As the petitioners could not shift the toddy shop to the newly permitted location, they negotiated with the owner of the building in which they had their shop till 2007 and secured his consent to move back, for he had decided to retain the property instead of selling it. 4. In response to the petitioners' application, the second respondent called for a report from the third respondent, who submitted Exhibit P4 opinion on the petitioners' request for shifting. Requiring clarifications on certain aspects, the second respondent once again asked the third respondent to provide more information. It resulted in Exhibit P5 communication from the third respondent. Thus, based on the third respondent's Exhibits P4 and P5 opinions, the second respondent issued Exhibit P3 proceedings rejecting the petitioners' request to shift the toddy shop back to the old building, where the shop had functioned till 2007. 5. Faced with Exhibit P3 rejection, the petitioners requested the second respondent to reconsider his decision. This time the fourth respondent conducted an enquiry and submitted Exhibit P6 report. Eventually, the third respondent passed Exhibit P7 order on 18.03.2015 reiterating his stand as had been reflected in Exhibit P3. The petitioners did not challenge the rejection as the abkari year ended within a couple of weeks after Exhibit P7 order of rejection. This time the fourth respondent conducted an enquiry and submitted Exhibit P6 report. Eventually, the third respondent passed Exhibit P7 order on 18.03.2015 reiterating his stand as had been reflected in Exhibit P3. The petitioners did not challenge the rejection as the abkari year ended within a couple of weeks after Exhibit P7 order of rejection. Nevertheless, for the abkari year 2015-16, the petitioners once again submitted an application renewing their request. Predictably, the third respondent, through exhibit P9, rejected their request to shift the shop. 6. Beginning from Exhibits P3 to P9, the authorities' stand is uniform: that the place where the petitioners wanted to shift their shop is within the prohibited area of a nearby school. Aggrieved, the petitioners filed this writ petition. 7. In the above factual background, Sri M.G. Karthikeyan, the learned counsel for the petitioners, has submitted that the distance-norm as has been stipulated in Rule 7(2) of the Abkari Shops Disposal Rules ('the Rules') is well settled through a series of judicial pronouncements. To begin with, he has submitted that till 1993 or thereabout, the legislation was not clear concerning how to measure the distance between the two places. According to him, both in the Abkari Shops Disposal Rules and also Foreign Liquor Rules, amendments were effected: The distance shall be measured from gate to gate. 8. The learned counsel has further contended that the school in question has one main gate and two wicket gates. It is the learned counsel's specific contention that the wicket gates are meant for ancillary purposes, such as providing passage to the vehicles, etc. According to him, those gates cannot be treated as main gates. To support his submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on State of Kerala v. Vijaya Kumar, 2009 (1) KLT 578 . 9. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader, with equal vehemence, has submitted that the decision relied on by the petitioner can easily be distinguished because the issue therein was whether a zebra crossing should be considered for distance measuring and whether a hostel should be treated as an educational institution. 10. Laying much emphasis on the phraseology of Rule 7(2) of the Rules, the learned Government Pleader would contend that the legislative intent is loud and clear: To measure the distance, we should have the shortest pathway as the basis. 11. 10. Laying much emphasis on the phraseology of Rule 7(2) of the Rules, the learned Government Pleader would contend that the legislative intent is loud and clear: To measure the distance, we should have the shortest pathway as the basis. 11. Adverting to the factual dispute, the learned Government Pleader would further contend that the school in question has more than one main gate. And the authorities have rightly reckoned the distance from the second main gate. According to him, when the statutory norm is four hundred metres, the distance between the second main gate of the school and the proposed building is 356 metres. He has further contended that the distance from the third gate is 296 metres. The learned Government Pleader has placed reliance on State of Kerala v. Sukumaran, 1988 (2) KLT 261 , Sambamoorthy v. Excise Inspector, 1985 KLT 1150 and Augustine v. Ramakrishnan, 1994 (1) KLT 21 . 12. In further elaboration of his submissions, the learned Government Pleader has submitted that the authorities have taken into account essentially the welfare of the school children, who include toddlers to teenagers. Any hyper-technical interpretation of Rule 7(2) of the Rules, contends the learned Government Pleader, would defeat the public purpose and frustrate the legislative intent. And this Court at any cost, he avers, should shun such approach. 13. Eventually, drawing my attention to paragraph 5 of the statement filed by the third respondent, the learned Government Pleader has further contended that there is a specific averment that the nearest gate is commonly used by both the parents and the students. And the distance is only 298 metres from the said gate. He specifically contends that this averment stands unrebutted for the petitioners filed no reply or rejoinder countering the assertion by the respondent authorities. Summing up his submissions, the learned Government Pleader has urged this Court to dismiss the writ petition as devoid of merit. 14. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader, apart from perusing the record. 15. As stated at the outset, the issue lies in a narrow compass: to measure the distance between a place where a toddy shop is proposed to be established and a place where an institution or establishment enumerated in Rule 7(2) of the Rules is located. 15. As stated at the outset, the issue lies in a narrow compass: to measure the distance between a place where a toddy shop is proposed to be established and a place where an institution or establishment enumerated in Rule 7(2) of the Rules is located. Reduced to its essentials, the dispute is, should the distance be measured from only one gate of a building: the main gate? 16. We may begin our discussion by examining Rule 7(2) of the Rules, which reads as follows: "7(2) No Toddy or Foreign Liquor-1 shop notified in the Gazette under rule 4 shall be located outside the notified limits, but with the previous sanction of the Deputy Commission of Excise, it may be removed from one place to another within such limits. However no such shop shall be located in or removed to a place within an area declared as a project area. No toddy shops shall be located within 400 metres and no Foreign Liquor-1 shops shall be located within 200 metres from an Educational Institution, Temple, Church, Mosque, Burial ground and Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribes Colonies. In calculating distance the basis will be the shortest pathway/lane/street/road generally used by the public and the same shall be measured from gate to gate." (emphasis supplied) 17. From the above extract, it is evident that in calculating the distance, the basis shall be the shortest pathway generally used by the public and the same shall be measured from gate to gate. The bone of contention is, what is meant by gate to gate? In Vijaya Kumar v. State of Kerala, Decided on 16.11.2007 in W.P. (C) No. 27123 of 2007 a learned Single Judge of this Court has held that the distance has to be measured from the main gate to the main gate of the two establishments. From the facts of the said case, it emerges that the distance was required to be reckoned between a liquor shop and a students' hostel. In that context, his Lordship has held that the distance shall be measured taking into account even a zebra crossing, as a law abiding pedestrian is expected to take the said path. The further observation is that it shall be from gate to gate. In that context, his Lordship has held that the distance shall be measured taking into account even a zebra crossing, as a law abiding pedestrian is expected to take the said path. The further observation is that it shall be from gate to gate. But I hasten to add that it is not clear from the judgment whether the hostel has more than one gate; presumably, it was a non-issue in the factual setting of that case. I may, as a result, observe that the issue of a building having more than one gate has not fallen for consideration. 18. In fact, the Government took an intra-court appeal against the judgment under reference and invited Vijaya Kumar (supra). In the said judgment, the learned Division Bench did refer, with approval, to the learned Single Judge's finding that the distance is to be measured from gate to gate. Nevertheless, the learned Government Pleader has strenuously tried to distinguish the judgment on the premise that the principal issues in Vijaya Kumar (supra) were whether a hostel is an educational institution and whether a zebra crossing counts in distance determination. In other words, according to the learned Government Pleader, the observation concerning measuring the distance from gate to gate is only, if at all, obiter dictum. 19. Before proceeding further, I may observe that there is no need to entangle ourselves in the wrangle as to the precedential scope of Vijaya Kumar. Indisputably, both the learned Single Judge and the learned Division Bench have given their judicial imprimatur to the fact that the distance is to be measured from gate to gate. At any rate, the issue whether a building can have more than one main gate and whether the distance could be measured from what could be called the nearest main gate have not fallen for consideration. In these circumstances, I am of the opinion that Vijaya Kumar may not be an authority on the issue discussed now. 20. In Sukumaran (supra), a learned Division Bench has held that the object of the rule is to ensure that the student community is not exposed to the vice of liquor consumption. According to their Lordships, consumption of liquor is a constitutionally condemned vice, as is clear from the directive principle in Article 47 of Part IV of the Constitution. 21. In Sukumaran (supra), a learned Division Bench has held that the object of the rule is to ensure that the student community is not exposed to the vice of liquor consumption. According to their Lordships, consumption of liquor is a constitutionally condemned vice, as is clear from the directive principle in Article 47 of Part IV of the Constitution. 21. In Sambamoorthy (supra), a learned Single Judge of this Court has observed that under Rule 6(2), liquor cannot be sold within 400 metres from an educational institution or temple; that does not mean that outside this distance limit a licence, in all cases, can be granted or has to be granted. In the factual context, his Lordship has further held that in a place like Guruvayur, where devotees from all over India assemble in thousands every day, the authorities may have to consider whether a place, even outside the distance limit prescribed under Rule 6(2), can be licensed at all to sell liquor. In that context, the learned Single Judge has further observed that it is for the authorities to consider the said aspect. And not for this Court. 22. In Augustine (supra), a learned Division Bench of this Court has observed as follows: "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 distance the basis will be the shortest pathway/lane/street/road generally used by the public. This does not mean that the distance, if it can be covered with the help of a ferry boar, 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 trodden out by the feet: a way for foot-passengers: a course, route, line along which anything moves: a course of action, conduct". 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 trodden 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 boar 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, is 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 located beyond 400 metres from the religious institution. The path through which one treks the distance in between is not of much importance. If 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 the basis. If the appellant's contention is accepted, then no shop is to be removed beyond 400 metres if in between the shop and the educational institution or the religious institution a river flows. 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 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." 23. Indeed, none of the decisions relied on by the learned Government Pleader may have a direct bearing on the issue in question. Nevertheless, all the decisions are uniform in one aspect: highlighting the legislative object behind the provision. Courts are not to interpret the rule in such a way as to make it redundant or ineffective." 23. Indeed, none of the decisions relied on by the learned Government Pleader may have a direct bearing on the issue in question. Nevertheless, all the decisions are uniform in one aspect: highlighting the legislative object behind the provision. Undeniably, Rule 7(2) has a noble objective of ensuring that the baneful activity of liquor sale or, worse still, liquor consumption in public should not take place within a reasonable distance from a few particular places of significance: educational institutions, hospitals, places of worship, etc. Though I cannot import any moral value into the issue, the fact remains that the serenity and safety of the educational institutions has to be zealously guarded; the young minds have to be shielded from the pernicious practices and habits. 24. We cannot shut our eyes to the fact that the school in question caters to the educational needs of students from Class I to XII. Unhesitatingly, I can say that they are of an impressionable age susceptible to lures and temptations of the times. And their growth into adulthood is mostly by imitation. Appreciably, the legislature has brought on the statute book Rule 7(2) to ensure that no avoidable calamity befalls the young minds. 25. That said, I may further observe that there is certainly an element of ambiguity in the expression 'from gate to gate'. The provision does not in so many words spell out whether it should be only one gate or more than one gate. Equally candid should be the observation that how ever deft the legislative drafting is, it cannot cover a given field of human activity with omniscience--anticipating every contingency. After all, casus incogitatus, A situation unthought of by the author of a legal instrument, is draftsman's dread. True, in Vijaya Kumar (supra) the observation is that reckoning shall be from the main gate of the building. However, it had no occasion to address the issue whether a building can have more than one 'main' gate. 26. Proceeding in tune with the ratio of the judgments relied on by the learned Government Pleader, I am of the considered opinion that the provision calls for a purposive interpretation rather than literal one, given the laudable--even compulsive--objective the provision has been imbued with. 26. Proceeding in tune with the ratio of the judgments relied on by the learned Government Pleader, I am of the considered opinion that the provision calls for a purposive interpretation rather than literal one, given the laudable--even compulsive--objective the provision has been imbued with. If there is any interpretative ambivalence, the canons of construction compel us to lean in favour of the method that promotes the legislative objective. 27. In the present instance, the petitioners did produce the photographs to show that one of the three gates leads to a garage and that it is unlikely for the students to use the said gate. The photographs do not show the third gate on which the learned Government Pleader has placed much reliance. The defence on that count by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that it is admittedly a wicket gate. According to him, it cannot be treated as the main gate. 28. Appealing as the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners are, we cannot be oblivious to the fact that more than one responsible official of the department has physically examined the location; they have submitted reports with remarkable consistency that the other gates are also frequently used by the parents as well as the students of the school. From those gates, the distance falls short of four hundred metres. Given a choice between relying on a photograph and relying on a disinterested inspection report by an official whose bona fides have not been impeached, the discretion of this Court is better served if it relies on the official report. 29. In Exhibit P6 the Assistant Excise Commissioner (Enforcement) observed as follows: "On the basis of the application by the petitioners-licensees of the toddy shop for licensing the said toddy shop the distance between the proposed building No. VIII/486-A and the gates of the school nearby, 'The Bishop Moore School' has been measured. The school has two main gates and the western side facing the National Highway and another fate, 1.3 metres wide, on the southern side facing the road lying east-west. The said third gate is used by the students to come to school and also to go to the school ground on the south and as such it also qualifies as a gate of the school. The said third gate is used by the students to come to school and also to go to the school ground on the south and as such it also qualifies as a gate of the school. The distance between the proposed shop building and the main gate on the north is 4.1 metres and the other gate if 356 metres and between the shop building and the third gate if 296 metres. As suggested in the letter 2nd cited above, I enquired with the school Manager and Principal as to when the gates were put up and came to know that the school started functioning in 2001 and that both the gates in the front were there ever since and that both these gates are main gates of the school and that of these two gates the one on the north is used by the students for their egress and ingress and the other on the south for egress and ingress of vehicles and also by students. The 3rd gate on the southern wall of the school, used for going to ground etc., was put up in 2007." 30. In Exhibit P4, at an earlier point in time the Excise Inspector has given his view on the issue as follows: "I visited the proposed building and came to know that to the north of the proposed shop there is a school by name Bishop Moor Vidyapeeth. On measuring the distance of the main gate of the toddy shop to the sub-gate on the south-west of the school, the distance was found to be 298 metres. But from the main gate of the shop to the main gate of the school on the western side the distance was found to be 401 metres. Within the prescribed distance limit of the shop, there are to Scheduled Caste-Scheduled Tribe Colonies, Burial Places or places of worship of any religious sects. Till 2011-12, the toddy shop had functioned in the same building. The building proposed for conducting the toddy shop is one roofed with aluminum roofing sheets and fully covered on all sides. Three sides of the site are covered with fences and on one side there is a wall. There is toilet facility also provided inside the toddy shop compound. In the above circumstances, the application for licensing the toddy shop is forwarded to you for information and further action." 31. Three sides of the site are covered with fences and on one side there is a wall. There is toilet facility also provided inside the toddy shop compound. In the above circumstances, the application for licensing the toddy shop is forwarded to you for information and further action." 31. In the facts and circumstances, I hold that a building can have more than one main gate and that if the officials are satisfied that any other gate is also used for access, it shall be considered as another 'main' gate while they determine the distance. I may further add that once we take access or approachability as the principal criterion, the semantic niceties of the main gate and the wicket gate pale into insignificance. In my view, any other interpretation of the Rule in question will stultify the statutory scheme. Accordingly, I find no legal infirmity in Exhibit P9 final order passed by the second respondent. As a result, the writ petition is dismissed. No order on costs.