The legal position on ordering closure or shifting of liquor shops remains hazy with one section of judges of the Madras High Court taking a view that such orders could not be passed unless there were legal violations such as locating the shops within the prohibited distance from educational institutions/places of worship, and another set of judges ruling that any shop could be closed on the ground of public nuisance irrespective of the distance rule.
In two latest judgments on the issue, the first Division Bench of Chief Justice Indira Banerjee and Justice M. Sundar said: “It is not for this court to run the administration or to decide the appropriateness of the location for setting up of liquor/Tasmac shops. A public interest litigation may be filed by any citizen to secure the rights of members of the public at large or any marginalised section of people who are unable to fight for their own rights.
“When infringement of a right is made out, the court intervenes to restore such right irrespective of the locus standi of the writ petitioner. Public interest litigations are often initiated by courts even suo motu having regard to newspaper reports etc., or even upon judicial notice being taken of any illegality which is brought to or comes to the notice of the court.
“However, public interest litigation does not enable the court to travel beyond the four corners of law. The court does not ordinarily interfere with policy decisions, and in particular routine policy decisions, unless such policy decisions are patently arbitrary, violative of constitutional rights and/or human rights and/or any statute.”
‘No specific violation’
The observations were made while dismissing a PIL petition to shift a liquor shop situated close to Chinnasalem police station in Villupuram district on the ground that it was located in a residential area.
Stating that the petitioner had not been able to establish as to whether the liquor shop was situated within 100 metres from an educational institution or a place of worship, the judges said: “It is reiterated that in this case, no definite case has been made out of infringement of law.” They took a similar view when it came to deciding another PIL petition filed with a plea to prevent the opening of a liquor shop at Kalingarayan Street in Ram Nagar in Coimbatore city.
Though the petitioner in the second case had claimed that there were already enough number of liquor shops in the locality, the judges said: “The petitioner has not been able to pinpoint any rule or regulation which is being violated by opening the proposed liquor shops. If there are liquor shops already in existence, it is not understood how the opening of new liquor shops would affect the people of the area or schools in the vicinity.”
After recording a submission made on behalf of the petitioner with respect to the ill-effects of consumption of liquor, the Bench led by the Chief Justice said: “We may even personally agree with such submission but it is not for the court to run the administration or to interfere with policy decisions unless such policy decisions infringe upon any rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India or are in violation of any other law.”
On the contrary, a Division Bench of Justice Elipe Dharma Rao (since retired) and Justice K.K. Sasidharan had, on July 19, 2010, rejected a contention that no direction could be issued to shift a liquor shop situated beyond the prohibited distance. “The trade in liquor, otherwise known as Res extra commercium , is a major source of revenue to the State. But the revenue should not be at the expense of the peaceful life of the people,” the Bench had said.
This ruling was followed by many other Division Benches of the High Court.
