Tamil Nadu govt should reconsider its liquor policy for the good of citizens; current laws seem to protect TASMAC shops, bars: Supreme Court

Bench Justice R Suresh Kumar AND Justice G. Arul Murugan He noted that government regulations regarding the location of TASMAC stores should be for the protection and welfare of the people. However, at present, the regulations seem to be created to protect TASMAC stores, which aim to increase the sale of narcotics, which ultimately affects the society.

““The Rule, especially Rule 8 of the Rules of 2003, should have been framed to protect the welfare of the people of various localities in the State from the menace of people thronging such liquor shops, which create law and order problems almost on a daily basis. But here the Rule seems to have been framed to protect such TASMAC retail shops or IMFL retail shops, clubs or bars, which are aimed at increasing the sale of these intoxicating materials, which will greatly affect the entire society, i.e. the people of Tamil Nadu,” the court noted.

The court was hearing a petition seeking restraining the authorities from opening a recreational club in Woraiyur, Trichy. The petitioner argued that after the recreational club opens in a week or two, it will later become a mere liquor outlet after obtaining an FL2 license. The petitioner informed the court that though he and the people at the venue filed objections, they were dismissed, prompting them to approach the high court through a public interest litigation.

The authorities informed the court that the objection filed by the petitioner and others had already been considered by the District Collector and dismissed. It was submitted that as per the Tamil Nadu Liquor Retail Vending (In Shops and Bars) Rules 2003, objections to the application for a licence would be entertained in case of any violation of the rules. In the present case, since no rules were violated, the objections were not entertained.

The court observed that as per Rule 8 of the Rules of 2003, in the premises of Municipal Corporations and Municipalities, TASMAC shops, bars and recreational clubs selling IMFL paste cannot be set up at a distance of less than 50 metres and in other places at a distance of less than 100 metres.

The court also observed that in the instant case, the proposed location was within the municipal area and there was no place of worship or educational institution within 50 metres of the proposed location. In this regard, the court observed that the decision of the District Collector dismissing the objection was not vitiated in the strict sense of the word as the provisions were not violated.

At the same time, the Court noted that 50 metres was not a large distance and it was possible that in some cases there was an educational institution or a place of worship within 50 metres.saint or 52and meter. The court observed that in such cases, the location of TASMAC shop or liquor outlet would not be in violation of the rules as decided by the administration, but the people for whom the administration is being exercised would have a different opinion.

The court also noted that the state should have consciously decided to change its previous alcohol policy which was endangering the general public, especially the younger generation, which was evident from the countless cases reported daily.

Plaintiff’s attorney: Mr. M. Mohamed Zamil on behalf of M/s.Ajmal Associates

Defendant’s attorney: Mr. P.Thilak Kumar, Government Pleader, Mr. T.Senthil Kumar, Additional Public Prosecutor

Quote: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 273

Case Title: D Prabhu v Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise

Case number: WP(MD)No. 14523 of 2024