Madras High Court: In a writ petition filed to forbear the respondents from opening / establishing the recreation club of the respondent 5 and its bar, the Division Bench of R. Suresh Kumar* and G. Arul Murugan, JJ. has requested the State Government to re-visit their liquor policy for the welfare of the people in Tamil Nadu, especially the younger generation.
The petitioner’s concern is that in the locality at Thambi Garden and so far in that locality, there has been no Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Limited (‘TASMAC shop’) or any club selling the Indian Made Foreign Liquor (‘IMFL’) by getting FL2 licence. Thus, some people have made arrangements to open a recreation club within a week or two in the locality in the name of respondent 5 . Therefore, the petitioner on behalf of the public in that locality had already given objections to the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise and District Collector. However, the objections were never considered. Therefore, the petitioner on behalf of the local public has moved the present petition.
Concerning the location of a TASMAC shop or Bar or a Recreation Club for selling the IMFL by getting F.L.2 license, the Court took note of Rule 8 of the Tamil Nadu Liquor Retail Vending (In Shops and Bars) Rules, 2003 (‘Rules 2003’), and noted that no shop shall be established in Municipal Corporation and Municipalities within a distance of 50 metres and in other areas within 100 metres from any place of worship or educational institutions.
The Court said that in the case at hand, the proposed location of respondent 5’s recreation club is in the municipal area. Therefore, only the 50 metres Rule would apply. Further, the Court noted that within 50 meters, no place of worship or educational institution is located. Therefore, according to the District Collector, by applying Rule 8 of the Rules, 2003 after verifying the distance since it is not in violation of the Rules, especially Rule 8(1), regarding the distance of the location of the licensee, the objection that has been raised by the public has to be rejected.
The Court said that we come across many such cases where people in the locality oppose the move of the authorities to locate the TASMAC shop or IMFL shop or license for selling such IMFL and in respect of those objections given by the public, especially the women folk, the answer given by the authorities is that it does not cover under the Rule, which means the Rule is not violated.
The Court said that the Rules, 2003 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, the Rules appears to have been made to protect these TASMAC retail vending shops, IMFL retail vending shops, 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.
Therefore, the Court suggested that it’s important to re-think and re-visit the liquor policy of the Government, where, based on the public opinion, the Government can take a conscious decision.
The Court requested the State Government to re-visit their liquor policy in the State of Tamil Nadu for the welfare of the people in Tamil Nadu, especially the younger generation.
[D Prabhu v. Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, 2024 SCC OnLine Mad 2739, decided on 03-07-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For Petitioner: Advocate M. Mohamed Zamil
For Respondents: Government Pleader P. Thilak Kumar, Additional Public Prosecutor T. Senthil Kumar
