"For The Welfare Of The People In Tamil Nadu": Madras HC Urges Govt to Re-Visit Liquor Policy

The Court said that Rule 8 of the Tamil Nadu Liquor Retail Vending (In Shops and Bars) Rules, 2003 is designed to protect TASMAC and IMFL retail shops, clubs, and bars, prioritising the sale of intoxicating materials, which negatively impacts society in Tamil Nadu.

The Court was hearing a Writ Petition praying for a Writ of Mandamus seeking to forbear the official respondents from opening/establishing the recreation club of respondent no. 5 and its bar by considering the petitioner's representation.

The bench of Justice R. Suresh Kumar and Justice G. Arul Murugan observed, “this Court makes a request to the Government of Tamil Nadu to re-visit their policy of liquor in the State of Tamil Nadu for the welfare of the people in Tamil Nadu, especially the younger generation as they would be the pillars of the tomorrow society.”

Advocate M. Mohamed Zamil appeared for the Petitioner and Government Pleader P. Thilak Kumar appeared for the Respondent.

Brief Facts-

The petitioner filed the Writ Petition as a Public Interest Litigation and raised concerns about the establishment of a recreation club that may soon obtain an F.L.2 licence to sell liquor. The petitioner asserts that no such establishments exist in the locality and fears that the club's primary purpose is to sell liquor. Despite filing objections with the authorities, they have not been addressed or decided in favour of the public. Therefore, the petitioner approached the Court seeking intervention.

The Court perused rule 8 under the heading “Location of Shop” and noted that insofar as the municipal area, the prohibited distance is only 50 metres within which if an educational institution or temple or any place of worship is located, the licence cannot be granted for locating the shop or bar. The prohibited distance is 100 meters in respect of other areas than the Municipal areas.

The Court noted that respondent no.5’s recreation club is located within a municipal area, so according to the Court 50-meter rule applies. The Court further noted that the District Collector after relying on rule 8(1) confirmed in his order that no place of worship or educational institution is within 50 metres of the Club and consequently, rejected the public's objection.

The Court said that creating rules is the government's prerogative under the Act. If the government decides that Rule 8 allows licences for establishments more than 50 metres from educational institutions and places of worship in municipal areas, it is a policy decision that the Court will not oppose.

However, according to the Court, a 50-metre distance is relatively short and in cases where an institution or place of worship is slightly beyond this, going by the administration's logic this proximity will not harm the local public, including school children. 

Accordingly, the Court requested the Government to revisit the policy.

Finally, the Court dismissed the Writ Petition.

Cause Title: D.Prabhu v. The Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise

Appearance:

Appellant: Adv. M.Mohamed Zamil

Respondent: GP P. Thilak Kumar Government Pleader and APP T.Senthil Kumar

Click here to read/download Judgment