The obligation of the State to prevent public nuisance and safeguard the interest of the general public, especially minor children, as per the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937 and the Rules, 2003.

1. The petitioner is a Welfare Association of occupants having their office complexes at No.184, Poonamallee High Road, Kilpauk, Chennai -10. In this writ petition, they have sought for a direction to close the liquor shop with bar attached functioning in the basement of Golden Enclave situated at No.184, Poonamallee High Road, Kilpauk, Chennai-600 010 and to pass orders.

2. It was claimed by the petitioner that in the basement of the Golden Enclave, Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd., (for short TASMAC) is running a liquor shop with an attached bar. The owner of the premises is the first respondent, who is residing at Anna Nagar West. While operating the liquor shop in the basement, they had also covered the common areas with metal sheets and are illegally running a restaurant. The said premises is not at all suited either for running a liquor shop with or without a bar. It is being run contrary to the Rules and Regulations framed under the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937. The said complex is a commercial complex, wherein various offices are located and many women were also working. Due to the establishment of the liquor shop cum bar, the women were finding it very difficult to move freely inside the complex. One of the office was having a godown in the basement and the main job attached to the said office was only the godown for dealing the stock. Women staff of that office finds it difficult to go to the godown. The premises becomes pitiable after 6 p.m since people enter the complex to go to the bar at that time. Very often they stand outside the bar for consuming liquor.

3. It was further stated that the liquor shop cum bar is near the junction of the Poonamallee High Road and Tailors Road. Just opposite to the complex is the Bus Shelter put up by Metro Transport Corporation (M.T.C.). Very close to the complex, there are several schools, hospitals and temples. The school going children who are in the nearby schools have to come to the bus stand to go to various places. The school children as well as the women who went to catch the bus finds it difficult to use the bus stand because of the nuisance created by the persons who are consuming liquor in the bar and the shop. Many times, left over of eatables and empty bottles were thrown into the garbage of the complex. Invariably many persons who are consuming alcohol were also used to smoke in the same complex, thereby creating nuisance to the occupants of the enclave. Because of the shop and the bar, number of Auto rickshaws and Cycle rickshaws were also parked to bring in and take out the consumers. It was also stated that Maharishi Vidhya Mandir, Seetha Kingston House School for Girls, Our Ladies School for girls and Union Christian School for Girls are situated very close to the complex and the school children who come to the bus stand had to necessarily pass through the road near the shop. More often their safety is at stake. It was also stated in the Golden Enclave complex, there are as many as 40 offices and more than 200 women employees are working. In the second floor of the same complex, there is a dance school teaching traditional dance forms. The young girls and boys who are accompanied by their parents or guardians are unable to put up with this nuisance created by the shop and the consumers.

4. It was further stated by the storage of alcohol, there is also risk of fire in the building. The safety aspect was not taken note of by the Commissioner of Chennai Corporation and Tamil Nadu Fire and Rescue Department. Since eatables are prepared in the basement using LPG Gas cylinder and some other fuel, there is always a risk of fire in the building which can cause heavy damage to other occupants and the officers working in the building. It is in that premises, the writ petition came to be filed.

5. The writ petition was not admitted. On notice from this Court, on behalf of the second respondent, a counter affidavit dated 06.12.2010 was filed.