The State government may have taken over wholesale distribution as well as retail vending of Indian Made Foreign Liquor from the private sector through its public sector undertaking Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation (TASMAC), but that does not give it a licence to establish liquor shops right opposite other government offices, according to a recent order passed by the Madras High Court Bench here.
Disposing of a public interest litigation (PIL) petition pending since 2012, a Division Bench of Justices S. Nagamuthu and M.V. Muralidaran ordered immediate closure of a TASMAC-run liquor shop in a building situated within a distance of around five metres opposite the office of Commercial Taxes Department on Rajagopal Talkies Lane in the Pudukottai Municipality.
“If the shop is situated just at a distance of five metres opposite to the commercial taxes office, it would certainly be a great disturbance to the officers and the staff in the office and also to the general public who come to the said office day in and day out.
This, in our considered view, will be violative of the right guaranteed under Article 21 (protection of life and personal liberty) of the Constitution to all those persons,” the Bench said.
Counsel withdraws
The PIL petition was filed even before the shop was established and it sought for a direction to restrain Pudukottai Collector and District Manager of TASMAC from going ahead with the proposal. Nevertheless, the shop was opened due to the absence of an interim stay. When the case came up for final hearing, the judges found that the petitioner B. Senthilkumar’s counsel had withdrawn his appearance. On perusing the records, the judges came across an inspection report submitted by an Advocate Commissioner on December 12, 2013.
The report disclosed that the TASMAC shop had been located hardly at a distance of five metres opposite to the Commercial Taxes office and that there was a temple within a distance of 35 to 40 metres from the liquor shop.
It also stated that the shop was situated in the midst of residential houses and private office buildings.
Hence, the judges decided to hear the case even in the absence of counsel representing the petitioner and sought an explanation from TASMAC, which submitted a letter from the Pudukottai Municipality Commissioner stating that the locality in question had been classified as a commercial zone. TASMAC claimed that the statutory distance to be maintained from religious and educational institutions would not be applicable to such zones.
Says the location of the shop, if not a violation of distance rule, affects peaceful living of residents
