Madras High Court
Veerappan R vs )The Chairman on 7 October, 2025
WP No.31026 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 07.10.2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,
CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN
WP No.31026 of 2025
Veerappan R ... Petitioner
versus
1)The Chairman
Tamilnadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd.,
CMDA Tower -II, IV Floor Gandhi Irwin Bridge Road,
Chennai - 8
2)The Managing Director
Tamilnadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd.,
CMDA Tower -II, IV Floor Gandhi Irwin Bridge Road,
Chennai - 8
3)The District Manager
Tamilnadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd.,
Chennai South Plot No. B4,
Industrial Estate,
Ambattur, Chennai-600053.
4)The Principal Secretary to Government
Home, Prohibition and Excise Dept.,
Fort St.George, Chennai- 600 009
5)The Chennai District Collector
Rajaji Salai,Fourth Floor,
No.62, Beach Road,
George Town,
Chennai-600001 ...Respondents
Page 1 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/10/2025 01:34:33 pm )
WP No.31026 of 2025
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for
issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to forthwith close
the TASMAC shop No.516 situated at Old No.2, New No.3 and 5, Venkata
Krishna Road, R.A.Puram, Opposite Mandaveli Bus Terminus (Survey RS
No.4123/3 Mylapore Village).
For Petitioner : Mr.M.T.Arunan
For Respondents : Mr.J.Ravindran,
Additional Advocate-General,
assisted by Ms.V.S.Saranya,
Standing counsel for TASMAC,
for respondents 1 to 3
Mr.A.Edwin Prabhakar,
State Government Pleader
assisted by Mr.T.K.Saravanan,
Additional Government Pleader,
for respondents 4 and 5
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice) This petition has been filed by the petitioner on the allegation that the respondent authorities have located the TASMAC shop on a prohibited place inasmuch as the shop is situate within the prohibited distance from temples, schools and hospitals in the locality.
2. One of the issues which has been raised by the petitioner is that the liquor shop is situated on the way to a school, and this Court Page 2 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/10/2025 01:34:33 pm ) WP No.31026 of 2025 in the case of K.Kannan vs. Managing Director, decided on 02.06.2025, in WP (MD) No.2919 of 2025, has held that in appropriate cases, direction could be issued by the Court to prevent location of a TASMAC shop, in case it is found that the shop is located on the road which has a direct pathway to a nearby school.
3. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the measurements which have been shown by the respondents in the counter-affidavit are not based on proper and correct measurements. He would submit that a proper measurement be directed, with a Court commissioner, to ensure that the measurement is properly done because according to the petitioner, the liquor shop is situated within the prohibited distance from schools, hospitals and religious places.
4. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate-General would submit that the allegations made in the petition are factually incorrect. He would submit that after the order was passed by this Court, a survey was conducted regarding the location of the TASMAC shop with reference to schools, hospitals and religious places, as Page 3 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/10/2025 01:34:33 pm ) WP No.31026 of 2025 alleged in the petition. The report which has been submitted after inspection clearly shows that the TASMAC shop is not situated within any of the prohibited distance as provided under Rule 8 of the Tamil Nadu Liquor Retail Vending (In Shops and Bars) Rules, 2003. He would further submit that once it is found that the liquor shop is not within the prohibited distance, a direction to remove the shop by changing its location may not be issued by the Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction merely on the ground that it is otherwise inconvenient to the public or that it would lead to school. In any case, it is submitted that the location of the school and the shop as shown in the map attached to the counter-affidavit also falsifies the allegation of the petitioner that the school is situated on the road which directly approaches the TASMAC shop and therefore, the students who are going to school would have to necessarily cross the TASMAC shop and thereby face unwarranted exposure to liquor shop.
5. The location of liquor shop is not a matter of choice of anyone but is regulated by law of the land. In exercise of the rule making power conferred on it under Sections 17-C, 17-D, 21, 22-D and 54 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937 (Tamil Nadu Act X of 1937), the Page 4 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/10/2025 01:34:33 pm ) WP No.31026 of 2025 State has framed Rules known as the 'Tamil Nadu Liquor Retail Vending (In Shops and Bars) Rules, 2003'. The Rule seeks to regulate the location of the shop also by providing as below :
“8. Location of shop.– (1) No shop shall be established in Municipal Corporations and Municipalities within a distance of 50(fifty) metres and in other areas 100(hundred) metres from any place of worship or education institutions:
Provided that the distance restriction shall not apply in areas designated as “Commercial” or “Industrial” by the Development or Town Planning Authorities:
Provided further that no shop shall be established within the premises of any hotel:
Provided also that if any place of worship, educational institution comes into existence subsequent to the establishment of the shop, the provisions of this rule shall not apply:
Provided also that no liquor shops shall be established in any tribal areas covered under Integrated Tribal Development Project and Hill Area Development Project in the Hill area of Vellore, Salem, Namakkal, Dindigul, Tirunelveli and Kanniyakumari districts.Page 5 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/10/2025 01:34:33 pm ) WP No.31026 of 2025 (2)Every shop shall be housed in pucka building and no part of the shops shall be thatched either on the sides or on the roof.
(3)The shop shall be in the location approved by the Collector before commencing the business in the shops.”
6. Therefore, the State's policy under the authority of law made by legislature clearly lays down the extent of prohibited distance of a TASMAC shop from various places like educational institution, religious institution and other public places.
7. From the reply of the respondents, it is revealed that survey and field inspection was conducted and the following factual position emerges:
Sl.No. Name of the Religious Institution Distance from the shop (in meters) 1 Sundara Vinayagar Temple 230 2 CSI Lukes Church 240 3 VINEYARD Family Church 186 4 St. Jhons Junior College 232 5 Varasidhi Vinayagar Temple 60.9 6 Arulmigu Sri Vengatesa Perumal Temple 230 7 EDKHA Masjid 235 Page 6 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/10/2025 01:34:33 pm ) WP No.31026 of 2025
8. In the status report which has been filed, at paragraph 4 it has been divulged that the Tahsildar conducted survey and submitted a report dated 20.08.2025 in which it has been clarified that shop No.516 (TASMAC shop) is located 230 meters away from Sundara Vinayagar Temple; 240 meters away from CSI Lukes Church; 186 meters away from VINEYARD Family Church; 232 meters away from St. Jhons Junior College; 230 meters away from Arulmigu Sri Vengatesa Perumal Temple; 60.9 meters away from Varasidhi Vinayagar Temple and 235 meters away from EDKHA Masjid. A map has also been attached along with the affidavit/ status report.
9. We ourselves looked into the map to find out the location of school and the TASMAC shop. It is vividly clear that the TASMAC shop is not even located on the main road. To approach the main road from the TASMAC shop, one has to use a 'L' shaped road which approaches the main road. The main road forms a junction with another road which leads to the school. Apparently therefore, the allegation in the petition that the liquor shop is situated on the direct pathway to the school is factually incorrect.
Page 7 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/10/2025 01:34:33 pm ) WP No.31026 of 2025
10. As to where a liquor shop should be situated is essentially a matter in the domain of the lawmakers and the Court itself cannot venture into legislation only on its own understanding of the suitability of a liquor shop. In the absence of there being any clinching material on record that the location of the liquor shop is so inherently dangerous to the public health or environment or any other exceptional reason, merely because the petitioner forms an opinion that the liquor shop should not be situated in the area, interference by the Courts would not be within the scope of judicial review.
11. Though submissions have been made by learned counsel for the petitioner that the State is required to take care of public health and that by itself should be the most important consideration for removal of the liquor shop, it does not impress us. The petitioner has not come up with any relief that all the liquors shop should be closed in the State. He has not even challenged the validity of the rules which allow location of shop if it is proposed to be located beyond 50 meters from the places mentioned in Rule 8 of the Rules. What then remains is only arguments based on certain moral consideration. Page 8 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/10/2025 01:34:33 pm ) WP No.31026 of 2025
12. No direction can be issued at the instance of the petitioner to change the location of the shop, once the shop is found to be on the location which is not prohibited under the Rules. It is for the petitioner to approach his own representatives and convince them to alter the rules in such a manner as the petitioner thinks should be done and it is not for the Court to mould the law and then direct its implementation to suit the views of the petitioner. We need not burden our decision with various observations of the like nature made by this Court in various orders which have been placed before us. Legal position in this regard being crystal clear, we are not inclined to proceed further in the matter.
13. The petition stands dismissed with cost of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only), to be paid to the Puducherry Legal Services Authority, within a period of one month from today.
(MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, CJ.) (G.ARUL MURUGAN, J.) 07.10.2025 Index : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No tar Page 9 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/10/2025 01:34:33 pm ) WP No.31026 of 2025 Page 10 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/10/2025 01:34:33 pm ) WP No.31026 of 2025 To
1)The Chairman Tamilnadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd., CMDA Tower -II, IV Floor Gandhi Irwin Bridge Road, Chennai - 8
2)The Managing Director Tamilnadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd., CMDA Tower -II, IV Floor Gandhi Irwin Bridge Road, Chennai - 8
3)The District Manager Tamilnadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd., Chennai South Plot No. B4, Industrial Estate, Ambattur, Chennai-600053.
4)The Principal Secretary to Government Home, Prohibition and Excise Dept., Fort St.George, Chennai- 600 009
5)The Chennai District Collector Rajaji Salai,Fourth Floor, No.62, Beach Road, George Town, Chennai-600001 Page 11 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/10/2025 01:34:33 pm ) WP No.31026 of 2025 THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND G.ARUL MURUGAN, J.
(tar) WP No.31026 of 2025 07.10.2025 Page 12 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/10/2025 01:34:33 pm )