Tamil Nadu Govt Should Revisit Its Liquor Policy For Welfare Of Citizens; Present Rules Appear To Protect TASMAC Shops, Bars: High Court
The Madras High Court recently noted that it was high time that the Government of Tamil Nadu rethink its liquor policy for the welfare of the people in the state, especially the younger generation who are the pillars of tomorrow. The court added that a conscious decision could be taken based on public opinion and though taking a decision may not be an easy task, that should not justify...
The Madras High Court recently noted that it was high time that the Government of Tamil Nadu rethink its liquor policy for the welfare of the people in the state, especially the younger generation who are the pillars of tomorrow.
The court added that a conscious decision could be taken based on public opinion and though taking a decision may not be an easy task, that should not justify the State's support to the liquor policy presently in place.
The bench of Justice R Suresh Kumar and Justice G Arul Murugan noted that the Government Rules, regarding the location of TASMAC shops, should be for the protection and welfare of the people. However, presently, the Rules appear to be made to protect the TASMAC shops whose aim is to enhance the sale of intoxicating material that ultimately affect the society.
“The Rule, especially Rule 8 of the 2003 Rules, should be made to protect the welfare of the people in various localities in the State from the menace of people thronging in these kind of liquor vending shops which create almost everyday law and order problem. But here, the Rule appears to have been made to protect these kind of TASMAC retail vending shops or IMFL retail vending shops or clubs or bars which aim to enhance the selling of these intoxicating materials which will go a long way to affect the society at large, i.e., the people in Tamil Nadu,” the court observed.
The court was hearing a petition to forbear the authorities from opening a recreational club in Woraiyur, Trichy. The petitioner had argued that once the recreational club was opened within a week or two, it would later become only a liquor-selling place after obtaining the F.L.2 license. The petitioner informed the court that though he, along with the people in the location had raised objections, the same were rejected prompting them to approach the high court by way of a public interest litigation.
The authorities informed the court that the objection raised by the petitioner and others was already considered by the District Collector and rejected. It was submitted that as per the Tamil Nadu Liquor Retail Vending (In Shops and Bars) Rules 2003, objections to the application for a license would be considered in case of any violation of the Rules. In the present case, since no rules were violated, the objections were not considered.
The court noted that as per Rule 8 of the 2003 Rules, in Municipal Corporations and Municipalities, TASMAC shops or Bars or Recreation Club for selling IMFL shall not be established within a distance of 50 meters and in other areas within 100 meters.
The court also noted that in the present case, the proposed location was in a municipal area and no place of worship or educational institution was located within 50 meters of the proposed location. Thus, the court observed that the decision of the District Collector rejecting the objection was not faulty in a strict sense as the rules were not violated.
At the same time, the Court also observed that 50 meters was not a vast distance and it was possible that in some cases, an educational institute or a place of worship was located in the 51st or 52nd meter. The Court observed that in such cases, the location of the TASMAC shop or liquor vending place would not be against the rules as per the decision of the administration but the people for whom the governance is made would feel otherwise.
The court also observed that the State should take a conscious decision in revisiting the existing liquor policy, which was putting the common public, especially the younger generation in peril which was evident from the innumerable cases being reported daily.
Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. M. Mohamed Zamil for M/s.Ajmal Associates
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr.P.Thilak Kumar Government Pleader, Mr.T.Senthil Kumar Additional Public Prosecutor
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 273
Case Title: D Prabhu v The Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise
Case No: W.P.(MD)No.14523 of 2024