The doctrine of legitimate expectation is not available against a legislation.

SRINIVASAN, J.:- A. INTRODUCTION.

[Matter in vernacular omitted - Ed.]

(Thirukkural : 923)

"The sight of the man who is intoxicated is an abomination even unto the mother that bore him; what must it be then to the worthy?"*

(Translation by Sri V. V. S. Aiyar)

So said Tiruvalluvar 2000 years ago. But obviously the words have not had the desired effect on mankind.

2. Article 47 of the Constitution of India enjoins the State to endeavour to bring about prohibition of the consumption of intoxicating drinks and of drugs which are injurious to health except for medicinal purposes. Four decades and more have elapsed since the advent of the Constitution. But no effective steps could be taken by any State for eradicating the evil. When the sagely advice of the Saint has failed to achieve its purpose for thousands of years, there is no wonder that the provision in the Constitution remains static. The problem is not confined to this country. It is present all over the world, and it has attracted the attention of the reformers and Legislators in all ages and at all times almost from the beginning of civilised society. But no country has yet succeeded in enforcing total prohibition. In 1743, Lord Lonsdale said in the House of Lords :-

"In every part of this great metropolis whoever shall pass along the streets will find wretchedness stretched upon the pavement, insensible and motionless, and only removed by the charity of passers by from the danger of being crushed by carriages or trampled by horses or strangled with filth in the common sewers ......... These liquors not only infatuate the mind but poison the body; they not only fill our streets with madness and our prisons with criminals, but our hospitals with cripples ...... Those women who riot in this poisonous debauchery are quickly disabled from bearing children, or produce children diseased from their birth."*

The scenario now presents in this country, at any rate in this State is almost the same which caused great concern to the House of Lords two centuries and a half ago. The Temperance Movement commenced then, but has not been fully successful. The position in our State and other countries has been similar.

B. HISTORY OF THE G. O.

3. The State of Tamil Nadu can, however, boast that it is the first State in this country when it introduced prohibition in 1937 when it was Madras Province. But the policy has not remained unchanged and proved itself to be vacillating. In August 1971, the operation of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act of 1937 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), was temporarily suspended. Prohibition was reintroduced in August 1973 by abolition of toddy shops and in September 1974 by abolition of arrack shops. However, the sale of Indian made Foreign Liquor imported from other States was continued in licensed shops. Such sale was to permit-holders. At that time, no one was given a licence to manufacture liquor in this State. In 1981, there was a shift in the stand and the provisions of the Act were relaxed with the result the sale of toddy and arrack were permitted. The State also permitted manufacture of Indian Made Foreign Spirit. At the same time, the personal permit system to drink toddy, arrack and Indian Made Foreign Liquor was also introduced. Toddy shops were permitted on a tender-cum-auction basis. Permission to manufacture arrack was granted to certain private individuals. Arrack retail shops were given permits on tender-cum-auction system. In 1987, the manufacture, sale and consumption of toddy and arrack were once again totally prohibited, though Indian Made Foreign Liquor retail shops continued to function. In 1989, the privilege of selling Indian Made Foreign Liquor by retail was granted through tender-cum-auction system. In 1990, the manufacture, sale and consumption of country liquor was introduced and the Tamil Nadu Spirit Corporation Limited was granted the exclusive privilege of manufacturing country liquor. The wholesale was entrusted to Tamil