JUDGMENT : Dama Seshadri Naidu, J. 1. The appellant is the unsuccessful writ petitioner. He filed W.R(C) No. 23547 of 2016, questioning the excise authorities' refusing to him an FL-11 licence. The Writ Petition dismissed, he filed this intra-court appeal. Facts in Brief: Petitioner PS. Bhadrasenan, running a three star hotel, applied to the excise authorities for an FL-11 license under the Foreign Liquor Rules. Bhadrasenan has a bar attached to his hotel, where he wanted to serve beer and wine to his customers. 2. The excise authorities, however, returned it on technical grounds. Rectified and re-presented, the application was once again rejected through Ext. P4 order: The distance between the gate of the hotel and that of a nearby church is below 200 metres-184 metres, to be precise. 3. The Government rejected Bhadrasenan's revision under Rule 40 of the FL Rules. Finally, he filed W.P.(C) No. 23547 of 2016 assailing Ext. P6 revisional order of rejection. A learned Single Judge, through judgment dated 19th June 2017, concurred with the findings of the primary and revisional authorities and dismissed the Writ Petition. So, further aggrieved, Bhadrasenan is before us in the Writ Appeal. Submissions: Appellant's: 4. Sri C.C. Thomas, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant, has contended that both the Department and the learned Single Judge have failed to notice Ext. P10 report jointly prepared by the Deputy Commissioner of Excise and the Joint Commissioner of Excise; they recorded the distance between Bhadrasenan's hotel and the church as 212 metres. He has submitted that the officials, initially, found through Ext. P4 order the distance as 184 metres; later, Bhadrasenan relocated the gate. And with that, the (distance between the two points has increased beyond 200 metres: 212 meters. So, the authorities, after re-measuring the distance, submitted the Ext. P10 report. 5. The learned Senior Counsel has drawn our attention to Note (2) appended to Rule 13(3) of the Rules, He strenuously contended that though a part of the road leading to the gate belongs to Bhadrasenan, still it must be reckoned as public path to ascertain the distance between the two gates. To support his contention, he has relied on Exts. The learned Senior Counsel has drawn our attention to Note (2) appended to Rule 13(3) of the Rules, He strenuously contended that though a part of the road leading to the gate belongs to Bhadrasenan, still it must be reckoned as public path to ascertain the distance between the two gates. To support his contention, he has relied on Exts. P12 and P14 judgments: M/s. Hotel National Park v. State of Kerala (An unreported judgment dated 17th August 2015 in W.P.(C) No. 2666 of 2014) and State of Kerala v. Babu John 2012 (4) KLT 877 : 2012 (4) KHC 735 (D.B.). 6. As to the church, the learned Senior Counsel has submitted that it is open only in the weekends and on festive occasions; it may soon disappear as the property has been acquired by the Government to widen the road. In the end, the learned Senior Counsel has urged us to set aside Ext. P12 judgment and direct the excise authorities to grant an FL-11 license to Bhadrasenan, the appellant. The Excise Department: 7. Per contra, Sri. Renil Anto Kandamkulathy, the learned Senior Government Pleader, has strenuously contended that Rule 13, with the note appended to it, is very categoric in its scope and content. According to him, the distance must be measured through the shortest pathway or road generally used by the public. To elaborate, he submits that the expression 'gate to gate' must be understood and interpreted purposively. According to him, Bhadrasenan's stratagem of shifting the gate of his building and showing a part of his property as a pathway cannot be countenanced. A pathway or road in a private property, he asserts, is not accessible to the general public for commuting. As to the judgments Bhadrasenan relied on, the learned Government Pleader has tried to explain them away: They have been rendered entirely in different factual contexts. 8. Heard Sri C.C. Thomas, the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, Sri. Renil Anto Kandamkulathy, the learned Senior Government Pleader for the respondents 1 to 5, and Sri M.G. Karthikeyan, the learned counsel appearing for the 6th respondent besides perusing the record. Discussion: 9. Indeed, the facts are not disputed, and the issue falls in a narrow compass. Initially, the distance from Bhadrasenan's hotel to the nearby church was 184 metres. On that ground the officials rightly rejected Bhadrasenan's application. Discussion: 9. Indeed, the facts are not disputed, and the issue falls in a narrow compass. Initially, the distance from Bhadrasenan's hotel to the nearby church was 184 metres. On that ground the officials rightly rejected Bhadrasenan's application. Later, he shifted the gate of the hotel and re-submitted the application. This time the officials the Deputy Commissioner of Excise and the Joint Commissioner of Excise-re-measured the distance and submitted Ext. P10 report observing that the distance between the two gates is 212 metres. 10. Despite the increased distance, the Excise Commissioner through Ext. P11 rejected Bhadrasenan's application. He has observed that the hotel gate, as seen from the sketch, is placed at the back of the hotel building through Bhadrasenan's own property. So it is obvious that he has shifted the gate inside his own property to get the distance of 212 metres and to circumvent the distance shown. In the end, the authority has held that that part of the path leading to the newly erected gate is not a public path. 11. We may observe that Rule 13(3), with Note (2), has time and time again been considered by this Court. This Court's all interpretative efforts have not put a lid on the semantic controversy of the provision; the ambiguity perceived from or present in the provision refuses to die down. Then, it pays to extract Note (2): "Note (2) 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." 12. Indeed, the impugned judgment has meticulously analyzed, chiefly, the term 'general'. Taking lexical assistance, the learned Single Judge has concluded that so long as the path newly carved out by Bhadrasenan has not been dedicated to public, it cannot be termed or treated as a path "generally used by the public." 13. As we have mentioned, this Court often examined the provision. Precedentially, in M/s. Hotel National Park, a road leading to the hotel was laid through a property taken by the hotelier on lease. The department contended that it would not be reckoned as a public path. Repelling that contention, this Court, per a Single Judge has held that since the property is owned and possessed by the hotelier, the department's contention cannot be countenanced. The department contended that it would not be reckoned as a public path. Repelling that contention, this Court, per a Single Judge has held that since the property is owned and possessed by the hotelier, the department's contention cannot be countenanced. We are afraid the holding of M/s. Hotel National Park may have turned on the peculiar facts of that case. And, in our view, it cannot support Bhadrasenan's claim. 14. True, Sri. C.C. Thomas has laid much emphasis on Babu John. There, the hotel is near an educational institution. Physically, the hotel is in four floors third floor to sixth floor of a commercial complex. Acknowledging that the distance must be measured from gate to gate along the shortest path used by the public, a learned Division Bench of this Court has held: "Admittedly, the nearest educational institution in the vicinity of the hotel of the respondent is a lower primary school having a gate. The hotel is positioned in the floors 3 to 6 of a commercial complex. For the purpose of Rule 13(3) of Foreign Liquor Rules the distance has to be measured from gate to gate along the shortest way used by the public. That is the reason why the learned Single Judge found that the point from which the distance has to be measured is the entrance on the third floor of the commercial complex where the hotel is housed. In other words, the distance between the entrance at the third floor of the commercial complex and the gate of the lower primary school has to be taken into account for considering Ext. P3 application." 15. As seen from the above extract, this Court found it acceptable, to measure the distance up to the floor where the hotel is actually located. So, though the path leading to the third floor is privately owned, it has been reckoned for determining the distance. To our specific query, the learned Senior Government Pleader has submitted that this judgment has attained finality. In other words, the holding of the case binds us, too. 16. So, though the path leading to the third floor is privately owned, it has been reckoned for determining the distance. To our specific query, the learned Senior Government Pleader has submitted that this judgment has attained finality. In other words, the holding of the case binds us, too. 16. Applying the ratio of Babu John to the facts of this case, we gather from the sketch presented to us that Bhadrasenan cleared a part of the property; on one extreme, he constructed a compound wall and used as a path the space between the old compound wall shared by another property owner and the new compound wall. Almost at the rear of the hotel, he erected a new gate, just close to the parking lot. 17. Reaching up to the parking lot, a customer must have access to the hotel only through that gate. Indeed, to reach that gate, the customer should use the newly formed path. Granted the path is not part of the thoroughfare meant to be generally used by the public. But Bhadrasenan has not put curbs on anybody's accessing the road, and indeed the gate is at the far end. Thus, the gate to gate distance measured goes beyond 200 metres as has been found by the excise officials in their Ext. P10 report. Further, the undisturbed ratio of Babu John lays down that the path being owned by an individual cannot be a hindrance. Therefore, bound by the holding of Babu John, we find that Bhadrasenan has met the distance criterion and made himself eligible to an FL-11 license subject to his fulfilling other eligibility criteria, if any. In the result, we set aside the impugned judgment, dated 19th June 2017, as well as Exts. P4 and P11 orders passed by the second and first respondents respectively. Consequently, we direct the second respondent to re-consider Bhadrasenan's application treating that he has met the distance criterion. No costs.