Madras High Court Orders Closure of TASMAC Shop Near School Route | State Cannot Promote Liquor and Public Health Simultaneously in Contradiction to Constitutional Ethos
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Madras Division Bench of Justice S.M. Subramaniam and Justice Dr. A.D. Maria Clete has directed the closure of a TASMAC shop located at Trichy Road, Dindigul Town. The direction came through a Writ of Mandamus seeking enforcement action based on a citizen's representation alleging public nuisance. The court, upon examining the factual matrix and the statutory framework under Rule 8 of the Tamil Nadu Liquor Retail Vending (in Shops and Bars) Rules, 2003, held that compliance with statutory distance limits alone cannot justify a liquor shop's location if its operation disrupts public welfare. Stating the constitutional imperative under Article 47, the Bench stated that public health and peaceful usage of roads, particularly by children en route to school, outweigh formal regulatory compliance. Consequently, the respondents have been ordered to close the TASMAC shop within two weeks. The court held that the closure of a single outlet would not prejudice the respondents but rather serve the larger public interest.
The Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus. The petitioner sought a direction for the closure of TASMAC Shop No.3110 located on Trichy Road, Dindigul Town. The representation prompting this legal action was dated 09.11.2024. The petition alleged that the shop is causing a serious public nuisance, especially to school-going children who regularly use the road where the shop is located.
The petitioner contended that the shop was situated along a primary road used by children accessing local educational institutions. This presence of the TASMAC shop created disturbances and made it difficult for the general public, especially minors, to use the thoroughfare without hindrance. The petitioner claimed that the shop's location violated the spirit of Rule 8 of the Tamil Nadu Liquor Retail Vending (in Shops and Bars) Rules, 2003, given the proximity to sensitive public institutions.
In response, the third respondent, the District Manager of TASMAC, filed a counter-affidavit disputing the petitioner’s factual assertions regarding proximity. According to the affidavit, the CSI Sester Primary School is located approximately 30 meters from the shop, Tattli Secondary School approximately 50 meters, CSI Church at a nearby but unspecified short distance, and the Government Hospital about 100 meters away. The third respondent argued that the shop is situated within Corporation limits, and hence, under the proviso to Rule 8 of the 2003 Rules, the restriction on distance does not apply in such areas.
The third respondent further asserted that the location was legally compliant and that the petitioner’s representation did not warrant any remedial action. It was claimed that TASMAC had adhered to the statutory norms governing the operation and placement of liquor retail outlets, thereby disqualifying any claim of impropriety.
The petitioner, however, reiterated the fact that even if statutory distance limits were met, the shop's location nonetheless resulted in a public nuisance. Specific prominence was placed on the nature of the road, its usage by school children, and the disruptive influence of a liquor outlet in such a sensitive and congested environment.
The Court recorded that "mere adherence to the distance criterion is insufficient when certain mitigating circumstances are raised by an aggrieved citizen." It further noted, "Undoubtedly, a TASMAC shop may cause a nuisance to the road users in the locality, particularly, to the children during School hours."
The Division Bench stated that the role of the State includes ensuring that no nuisance is caused to citizens and road users, observing, "It is the duty of the State to ensure that no such nuisance is caused to the citizens and road users."
In discussing the constitutional obligations of the State, the Court invoked Article 47, stating, "Article 47 of the Constitution of India directs that the State shall regard the raising of the level of nutrition and the standard of living of its people and the improvement of public health as among its primary duties and in particular the State shall endeavour to bring about prohibition of the consumption except for medical purposes of intoxicating drinks and of drugs which are injurious to health."
The Bench held that this constitutional mandate implies that State action should be aligned with public health goals. It noted, "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 criticized the contradictory stance of the government in promoting health infrastructure while simultaneously facilitating alcohol retail, stating, "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."
Further, the Court linked the issue to fundamental rights, remarking, "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 thus rejected the idea that compliance with distance rules alone validated the presence of the shop.
The judicial assessment gave particular weight to the surrounding environment. The Bench recorded, "In the present case, the very same road is used by the children to reach their School and it serves as a direct pathway. Consequently, the TASMAC shop would undoubtedly cause public nuisance to the road users, children attending the School and persons going to Church etc."
Based on the totality of facts and the constitutional framework, the Court issued a clear directive. It recorded, "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."
The Bench then directed the respondents explicitly, stating, "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 also passed directions concerning case management, stating, "Accordingly, this Writ Petition stands allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed."
To ensure compliance, the Bench ordered, "List the matter under the caption 'For Reporting Compliance' on 18.06.2025."
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioner: Mr. S. Ramakrishnan for Mr. P. Vetrivvel
For the Respondents: Mr. N. Vignesh, Standing Counsel; Mr. J. Ashok, Additional Government Pleader
Case Title: K. Kannan v. The Managing Director
Case Number: W.P(MD)No.2919 of 2025
Bench: Justice S.M. Subramaniam and Justice Dr. A.D. Maria Clete
[Read/Download order]
