Welfare Government Should Strive To Enforce Prohibition, Not Establish More Liquor Shops: Madras High Court

“Therefore, it is a constitutional philosophy and the Directive principles insist that a welfare Government should strive wholeheartedly to enforce prohibition, rather than establish more TASMAC shops which adversely affect public health,” the court said.

The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice AD Maria Clete added that it was contradictory for a welfare state to establish more hospitals on the one hand and simultaneously establish TASMAC shops on the other. The court also added that when right to health was a fundamental right, the State should ensure that prohibition is implemented slowly to reduce the harm to public health.

“It is contradictory for a welfare Government to establish more hospitals on the one hand and simultaneously establish TASMAC shops on the other. This is not in consonance with constitutional ethos. When the right to health is a fundamental right, the State must ensure that the prohibition is slowly implemented in a phased manner to reduce harm to the public health,” the court said.

The court was hearing a petition to close down a TASMAC shop situated at Trichy Road, Dindigul Town.

The petitioner said that the shop was being run in a road which was used by School going children and was causing nuisance to both children and other road users. It was further submitted that due to the shop, the commuters were finding it difficult to use the road freely and peacefully.

The District Manager of TASMAC opposed the plea and submitted that the statements regarding proximity of the shop to the schools was incorrect. It was submitted that the shop was located within the Corporation limits, where the prohibited distance is 50 meters as per Rule 8 of the Tamil Nadu Liquor Retail Vending (in Shops and Bars) Rules, 2003. As per Rule 8, no shop shall be established in a Municipal Corporation and Municipalities, if there is an educational institution or place of worship within a distance of 50 meters.

The District Manager added that as per the first proviso to Rule 8(1), the distance restriction would not apply in areas designated as 'Commercial' or 'Industrial' by the Development or Town Planning Authorities. He added that in the present case, since the shop was situated in a commercial area, the distance restriction would not apply.

The court however opined that mere adherence to the distance criterion was not sufficient when other mitigating circumstances were raised by aggrieved citizens. The court noted that in the present case, the shop was causing nuisance to school going children and other persons.

Noting that closing one TASMAC shop would not cause any prejudice and would in fact benefit the public, the court was inclined to allow the plea.

“In view of the fact that the closure of one TASMAC shop would not cause any prejudice but would rather benefit the public at large, this Court is inclined to consider the relief sought for. Consequently, the respondents are directed to forthwith close the TASMAC shop No.3110 situated at Trichy Road, Dindigul Town, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order,” the court said.

Thus, the court allowed the petition and directed the authorities to close the TASMAC shop.

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. S. Ramakrishnan for Mr. P. Vetrivvel

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. N. Vignesh Standing Counsel, Mr.J.Ashok Additional Government Pleader

Case Title: K Kannan v. The Managing Director and Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 190

Case No: W.P(MD)No.2919 of 2025