The Madras High Court has ruled that it cannot order the closure of Tasmac shops located beyond the distance restrictions prescribed under applicable law, while leaving it open to the Tamil Nadu government to revisit its policy and act in accordance with the law.
Justice Hemanth Chandangoudar passed the order while disposing of a plea filed by T S Sridhar seeking the closure of Tasmac outlets at Sukurama Street, Parrys, Post Office Street, Prakasam Salai, Broadway near Mannady Metro, Jaffar Sarang Lane, opposite Harbour and Wall Tax Road.
The petitioner had relied on a Tamil Nadu government policy decision concerning the closure of retail liquor outlets located within 500 metres of places of worship and educational institutions. Through a representation, he sought action against the outlets named in the plea.
Tasmac opposed the petition, stating that the outlets were beyond the prescribed distance from places of worship and educational institutions. Its submission also referred to Rule 8(1) of the Tamil Nadu Liquor Retail Vending (in Shops and Bars) Rules, 2003. According to the position recorded in the case, the restriction under that rule does not apply when the outlets are located within the limits of a municipal corporation.
The petitioner’s counsel, R S Raveendhren, argued that the government’s policy was irrational because the government had identified only 717 shops for closure on the basis of the 500-metre norm, even though the norm had not been notified. He also submitted that other shops in the state that may fall within the distance limit had not been selected for closure.
The High Court referred to an earlier decision of its division bench, which had rejected a similar request. The court recorded that a mandamus could not be issued to close a Tasmac outlet when the shop was situated beyond the prohibited distance prescribed under the applicable rules.
The ruling does not prevent the Tamil Nadu government from reviewing its policy. The court said that if the government decides to change or revisit the policy, it remains open to it to take an appropriate decision in accordance with law. The immediate issue before the court was therefore limited to whether a closure order could be directed against the listed outlets when they were beyond the applicable legal distance.
