MADURAI: Calling the state government’s decision to close Tasmac outlets located within 500m from educational institutions and places of worship a welcome step, a vacation bench of the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court refused to stop the closure of 33 outlets in Thoothukudi, Madurai, and Tiruchy districts, and instead directed the government to consider refunding the licence fee for the non-operating period within three weeks.
Justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy gave the direction on a batch of petitions filed by landlords of buildings in which the outlets were operated and the licensees who were permitted to sell snacks, water, and collect liquor bottles in the bars attached to the outlets.
The counsel representing the petitioners argued that the government’s decision was arbitrary, as Rule 8 (1) of the Tamil Nadu Liquor Retail Vending (in Shops and Bars) Rules, 2003, only prohibits the establishment of liquor outlets within 50m from places of worship or educational institutions in municipalities and corporations and 100m in other areas. The government cannot change this existing rule to 500m merely through a press release, one of the advocates contended.
They also pointed out that many licensees already paid the licence fee up to the expiry of the lease period on June 30, and the excess fee for the non-operating period has not been refunded.
Citing the monetary loss they might face from the government’s decision, they requested the court to forbid the government from shutting down the outlets without following due process of law.
However, Advocate General Vijay Narayan told the court that the entire business of selling liquor is ‘res extra commercium’ (‘things outside commerce’- a legal principle denoting items that cannot be privately owned or traded). “The petitioners were only permitted by the Tasmac to sell water bottles, snacks, and collect liquor bottles. As per licence condition number 2, their activity comes to an end as and when the shop closes,” he pointed out. As far as refunding the security deposit or excess fee was concerned, the government would consider and take an appropriate decision, he added.
Hearing both sides, the judge observed that Article 47 of the Indian Constitution, a Directive Principle of State Policy, expects the state government to work towards ensuring public health, which includes prohibiting intoxicating drinks, except for medicinal purposes. So the legitimate expectation or right to carry on trade under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, which applies to ordinary commerce, cannot be considered as far as the liquor trade is concerned, as the same is harmful to public health and welfare. No citizen can claim any unrestricted fundamental right to trade liquor under Article 19(1)(g), he added.
The objections raised by the petitioners in connection with Rule 8 were also rejected by the judge, citing that the rule does not prevent the government from closing a shop outside the prohibited radius mentioned in the rule.
He directed the licensees to file an application for refund of licence fee or security deposit within a week.