High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ELIPE DHARMA RAO & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.K. SASIDHARAN
The Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd., Rep.by its Managing Director
Versus
R.M. Shah & Others
W.A.No. 1353 of 2010
Decided on : 19-07-2010
Liquor Shop - Public Nuisance - Tamil Nadu Liquor (Retail Vending) Rules - Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - The judgment discusses the location of a liquor shop-cum-bar in a residential area, the prohibition distance under the Tamil Nadu Liquor (Retail Vending) Rules, and the right to lead a peaceful life without nuisance. It also highlights the application of Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 in addressing public nuisance caused by liquor shops.
Fact of the Case:
The residents filed a writ petition to shift a liquor shop-cum-bar located in a residential area due to public nuisance caused by its customers. The single Judge directed the closure of the liquor shop, leading to the appeal by the Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd. (TASMAC).
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the location of the liquor shop in a residential area caused public nuisance, affecting the right to lead a peaceful life. It emphasized that the absence of restriction on conducting liquor bars in residential zones does not prevent challenging their location if they cause nuisance to residents.
Issues: The main issue was the location of the liquor shop in a residential area and the public nuisance caused by its customers. The court also addressed the applicability of the Tamil Nadu Liquor (Retail Vending) Rules and the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the right to lead a peaceful life without nuisance is protected under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and the absence of restrictions on liquor bars in residential zones does not prevent challenging their location if they cause nuisance to residents. It also emphasized the applicability of Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 in addressing public nuisance caused by liquor shops.
Final Decision: The Writ Appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was granted six weeks to comply with the order to shift the liquor shop.
Elipe Dharma Rao, J.
1. The appellant challenges the order dated 06. 2010 in W.P. No. 38494 of 2005 whereby and whereunder the learned Judge directed the closure of the liquor shop-cum-Bar run by the Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd., (for short, ’TASMAC’) at Door No. 12/4 Ormes Road, Kilpauk.
.2. The residents of Ormes Road preferred the Writ Petition in W.P.No.38494/05 for shifting the liquor shop- cum – Bar at Door No.12/4 at Ormes Road, Kilpauk. The main grievance of the respondents 1 to 4 before the learned single Judge was that the location of the shop was highly objectionable as it was situated in a residential area, very near to a Girls School and a temple. The customers coming to the shop, after consuming liquor, used to threw the bottles indiscriminately all over the road and very often misbehaved with the local residents thereby creating lot of nuisance to the public. Though several representations were sent, there was no followup action, which made them to file the writ petition.
3. The TASMAC filed a counter affidavit contending that there was a private wine shop in the very same premises earlier for which there was no objection and that the area is not a pure residential area in view of the presence of commercial establishments in the street. It was further stated that the complaint sent by the writ petitioners were duly answered by the Corporation.
4. The learned single Judge, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and the materials placed for consideration including the report of the Joint Commissioner of Police and the Topo sketch showing the location of the shop vis-à-vis the school and the temple, allowed the writ petition, and directed closure of the liquor shop within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the order. Challenging the same, the writ appeal has been filed by the TASMAC.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.
6. Learned Standing Counsel for the Appellant would submit that the TASMAC shop is not located within the prohibitory distance as contemplated in the Rules. According to him previously a private wine shop was located in the very same place, which is a commercial area, and nobody objected to the functioning of the liquor shop. It was only when TASMAC opened the Bar, the so-called residents have raised their objections. The learned counsel would further submit that the business of TASMAC would be reduced considerably in case of such shifting. Therefore he seeks to set aside the order passed by the learned Judge.
7. It is a matter of record that pursuant to the direction of the learned single Judge, the Joint Commissioner of Police filed a report which shows that there has been several nuisance cases filed against various persons by the G.3 Kilpauk Police Station (L & O) and between 2005 and 2006, 10 cases have been registered under Section 75(1)(b) of the Madras City Police Act. It is also clear from the report that the accused in the said cases have been fined by the respective Magistrates. The learned Judge, taking note of the safety of the school going children, ordered the closure of the liquor shop.
8. The principal contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant pertains to the distance rule. According to the learned Standing Counsel the liquor shop was located beyond the prohibited zone prescribed under the Tamil Nadu Liquor (Retail Vending) Rules and therefore the learned single Judge was not justified in directing the appellant to shift the shop on the alleged ground of Public nuisance.
.9. It is truethat the retail vending rules provide that no shops shall be established within a distance of 50 metres in Municipal Corporations and Municipalities and 100 metres in other areas, from any place of worship or educational institutions. However, that does not mean that the liquor shops so established would get a licence automatically to cause nuisance to the local people. The prescription of distance for opening the Bar is a
AI
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.