JUDGMENT : The petitioner is a charitable society. The grievance voiced by the petitioner in the writ petition concerns the proposal of the fifth respondent to establish a Foreign Liquor I shop ('the shop') in a building situated within the limits of the sixth respondent Grama Panchayat. According to the petitioner, the building in which the fifth respondent proposes to establish the shop is situated within 200 meters from a Church which is prohibited under sub-rule (2) of Rule 7 of the Kerala Abkari Shops Disposal Rules, 2002 ('the Rules'). It is also the case of the petitioner that sub-section(2) of Section 232 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act ('the Act) requires prior permission of the Panchayat for establishing the shop and the fifth respondent has not obtained permission from the Panchayat as provided for under the said provision for establishing the shop. 2. A statement has been filed in this matter on behalf of the third respondent. The stand taken by the third respondent in the statement is that an institution called Abhayabhavan is referred to by the petitioner as a Church in the writ petition and that the said institution is not a Church, but only an old age home. As regards the permission contemplated under sub-section(2) of Section 232 of the Act, it is stated by the third respondent in the statement that the shop referred to in the petition is a shop which was existing as on 25th of November 2012 and that therefore, the said provision will not apply to it. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader as also the learned Standing Counsel for the fifth respondent. 4. The fact that Abhayabhavan referred to by the petitioner in the writ petition is located within the prohibited distance contained in sub-rule (2) of Rule 7 of the Rules is not in dispute. The issue arises for consideration is, therefore, whether the said institution can be regarded as a Church for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions contained in sub-rule (2) of Rule 7 of the Rules. The issue whether the fifth respondent is required to obtain prior permission of the Panchayat also arises for consideration. 5. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 7 of the Rules provides that no Foreign Liquor I shop shall be located within 200 meters from a Church. The issue whether the fifth respondent is required to obtain prior permission of the Panchayat also arises for consideration. 5. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 7 of the Rules provides that no Foreign Liquor I shop shall be located within 200 meters from a Church. 'Church' is defined in Section 2(f) of the Rules thus: " 'Church' means a public place where prayer is offered by Christians. " As noted above, the stand of the third respondent is that Abhayabhavan referred to in the writ petition is not a Church coming within the definition of "Church" as contained in the Rules. It is the specific case of the third respondent in the statement that Abhayabhavan is an old age home. The fact that there is an old age home in the premises called Abhayabhavan is not in dispute. Even according to the petitioner, the institution referred to by the petitioner in the writ petition as a Church is not named as a Church. Three photographs produced by the petitioner along with I.A.No.5820 of 2017 indicate that there is a small place of worship within the compound of the property within which the old age home is situated. It is evident from the definition of "Church" as contained in the Rules that the word "Church" is used in the Rules to mean 'a public place where prayer is offered by the Christians'. In other words, only places of worship of Christians where the public have a right of access can be regarded as Church for the purposes of the Rules. The question whether a particular place is a place where public have a right of access is a pure question of fact. A place of worship within the compound of a property within which an old age home is situated cannot be construed prima facie as a Church within the definition of "Church" as contained in the Rules. Of course, this being a question of fact, the petitioner is free to approach a competent civil court to establish that the place in question is a public place of worship. 6. Of course, this being a question of fact, the petitioner is free to approach a competent civil court to establish that the place in question is a public place of worship. 6. To deal with the contention raised by the petitioner, relying on Section 232 of the Act, it is necessary to quote Section 232 of the Act: "Section 232: Purpose for which places may not be used without a licence:- (1) The Village Panchayat may notify that no place in the Panchayat area shall be used for any of the purposes specified in the rules made in this behalf being purposes which in the opinion of Government, are likely to be offensive or dangerous to human life or health or property, without a licence issued by the Secretary and except in accordance with the conditions specified in such licence: Provided that no such notification shall take effect until the expiry of thirty days from the date of its publication. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Abkari Act, 1077 (1 of 1077) or in any other law for the time being in force, no person shall, without previous permission in writing of a Village Panchayat and otherwise than in accordance with the conditions specified in the permission, establish an Abkari shop within a Village Panchayat area; (3) While granting permission to establish an Abkari shop near an educational institution or place of worship, the distance limit prescribed in the Abkari Act for the time being in force or the rules framed thereunder shall be complied with and the Village Panchayat shall not grant permission to establish an Abkari shop within the said distance limit. (4) A Village Panchayat shall be competent, in the interest of public peace or morality or on the grounds of convenience or nuisance, to order the shifting of an Abkari shop from the place where it is situated to another or its closing within a period not exceeding fifteen days, as may be directed in this behalf. (4) A Village Panchayat shall be competent, in the interest of public peace or morality or on the grounds of convenience or nuisance, to order the shifting of an Abkari shop from the place where it is situated to another or its closing within a period not exceeding fifteen days, as may be directed in this behalf. (5) Notwithstanding anything contained in this section, the provisions of sub-sections (2) to (4) shall not be applicable to any Abkari shop existing on 25th November, 2012, the date of commencement of the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Fourth Amendment) Ordinance, 2012 (63 of 2012) or, subject to all existing legal provisions, for re-establishing the toddy shops existing on the said date, in the area within the boundaries allotted for establishing them. Explanation:- "Abkari shop" means a toddy shop or a foreign liquor shop or a foreign liquor retail shop or an establishment having FL-9 licence or a bar hotel, under the Abkari Act, 1077 and the rules made thereunder." Sub-section (2) of Section 232 of the Act provides that notwithstanding anything contained in the Abkari Act or any other law for the time being in force, no person shall, without previous permission in writing of a village panchayat, establish an Abkari shop. Permission is required under the said provision for establishing an Abkari shop. Explanation appended to Section 232 of the Act makes it clear that the Abkari shop referred to in the section would include foreign liquor shops also. Sub-section (5) of Section 232 of the Act starts with a non-obstante clause. The said sub-section provides that notwithstanding anything contained in Section 232 of the Act, the provisions of sub-sections (2) to (4) shall not be applicable to any Abkari shop existing on 25th November 2012, the date of commencement of the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Fourth Amendment) Ordinance 2012 or, subject to all existing legal provisions, for re-establishing the toddy shops existing on the said day, in the area between the boundaries allotted for establishing them. It is clear from the first part of the said sub-section itself that sub-section (2) of Section 232 of the Act does not apply to Abkari shops existing as on 25.11.2012. The fact that the Abkari shop, which the fifth respondent proposes to re-locate to the building referred to in the writ petition, is an Abkari shop that was existing as on 25.11.2012, is not in dispute. The fact that the Abkari shop, which the fifth respondent proposes to re-locate to the building referred to in the writ petition, is an Abkari shop that was existing as on 25.11.2012, is not in dispute. In other words, sub-section (2) of Section 232 of the Act does not apply to the said shop. If sub-section (2) of Section 232 of the Act does not apply to the shop in question, its relocation, according to me, is of no consequence. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner, relying on the second part of sub-section (5) of Section 232 of the Act, contended that the fifth respondent is re-establishing the shop in question; that the requirement contained in sub-section (2) of Section 232 of the Act is dispensed with only for the re-establishment of the toddy shops referred to in sub-section (5) of Section 232 of the Act and that therefore, the fifth respondent has to comply with the requirements of sub-section (2) of Section 232 of the Act for re-establishing the shop. There is no merit in this contention. Sub-sections (2) to (5) of Section 232 of the Act and the explanation beneath Section 232 of the Act were introduced by virtue of the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Fourth Amendment) Ordinance, 2012. Sub-section (5) to Section 232 of the Act, as introduced by virtue of the said Ordinance reads thus: "(5) Notwithstanding anything contained in this section, the provisions of sub-sections (2) to (4) shall not be applicable to any Abkari shop existing on the date of commencement of the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Fourth Amendment) Ordinance, 2012 (63 of 2012) or, subject to all legal provisions, for locating the toddy shops existing on the said date, in the area within the boundaries allotted for locating them." The Kerala Panchayat Raj (Fourth Amendment) Ordinance, 2012 came into force on 25.11.2012. The said Ordinance was replaced by the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Amendment) Act, 2013. Sub-section (5) of Section 232 of the Act was modified in the said amendment Act as extracted in paragraph 6 above. The said Ordinance was replaced by the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Amendment) Act, 2013. Sub-section (5) of Section 232 of the Act was modified in the said amendment Act as extracted in paragraph 6 above. From the changes introduced to sub-section (5) of Section 232 of the Act by virtue of the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Amendment) Act, 2013, it is evident that the second part of sub-section (5) to Section 232 of the Act was intended to exclude re-establishment of toddy shops which were existing on the date of the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Fourth Amendment) Ordinance, 2012, but not existing on the date of the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Amendment) Act, 2013, from the application of sub-section (2) of Section 232 of the Act. As such, it cannot be contended on the basis of the second part of sub-section (5) of Section 232 of the Act that the provision contained in sub-section (2) of Section 232 of the Act applies to re-establishment or re-location of foreign liquor shops excluded from its operation by virtue of the provision contained in the first part of sub-section (5) of Section 232 of the Act. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the shop in question was existing as on 25.11.2012 in a different Panchayat and the building to which the fifth respondent proposes to re-locate the same is situated in another Panchayat and therefore, the provision contained in sub-section (2) of Section 232 of the Act applies to the said shop. I do not find any force in the said contention also. If the requirements contained in sub-sections (2) to (4) of section 232 of the Act does not apply to a particular shop which was existing as on 25.11.2012, it does not matter whether it is relocated in the same panchayat or in a different panchayat. In the said view of the matter, the writ petition lacks merits and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.