Any step to close Tasmac shops welcome: HC

Madurai: Observing that any step towards closing Tasmac shops is a welcome move, Madras high court on Wednesday rejected a batch of petitions seeking to forbear the authorities from closing several outlets in Tuticorin district. The petitions were filed by landlords who have leased their buildings for Tasmac shops and by those licensed to sell snacks, water and collect bottles from these shops.Counsel for petitioners submitted that Rule 8 of Tamil Nadu Liquor Retail Vending (in Shops and Bars) Rules, 2003, mandates that no shop shall be established in municipal corporations and municipalities within 50 metres and in other areas 100 metres from any place of worship or educational institutions. The order passed by authorities to close shops which are not within the prohibited distance is in violation of the above rule. The counsel sought refund of licence fee paid by the petitioners.Advocate general Vijay Narayan submitted that petitioners are not even licensees from the excise department, but only permitted by Tasmac to sell snacks, water and collect bottles. According to licence conditions, their activity would come to an end as and when the shops are closed. The refund of the licence fee would be considered by the govt.Justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy observed that Article 47 of the Constitution under the Directive Principles of State Policy states the state shall endeavour to bring about prohibition of the consumption except for medicinal purposes of intoxicating drinks and of drugs which are injurious to health.The court said objective of the state to monopolise liquor vending business to Tasmac was two fold. Firstly, if the same was licensed to private persons there have been methods of luring people to the bar, and therefore, it was stopped. Secondly, the revenue arising out of it could be regulated and maximised by the state.The court said while Rule 8 speaks about prohibitory distance, it does not fetter the govt to follow larger principles to close shops situated away from the prohibitory distance. Closing of the shops is a welcome step and it cannot be said to be in violation of the Rule. The doctrine of legitimate expectation like in ordinary commerce could not be considered since the business itself is considered to be harmful to public health, the judge observed.When the outlets are run by Tasmac and when the govt and Tasmac want to close them down, the petitioners being the licensees only sell snacks and landlords can no way compel the state to continue the shops. However, the judge directed the petitioners to submit representations seeking refund of licence fees, and the authorities shall consider the same and pass orders.