Landlords cannot challenge governmental policy decisions regarding the closure of liquor shops based on procedural concerns, as such policies serve public health interests.

JUDGMENT :

S.M.Subramaniam, J.

Under assail is the writ order dated 30.11.2023 passed in W.P.Nos.27777 and 23234 of 2023.

2. The writ proceedings were instituted to challenge the proceedings of the Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Limited (TASMAC) dated 20.06.2023, stating that 500 liquor retail vending shops would be identified and closed based on an announcement made by the Hon'ble Minister for Electricity, Prohibition, and Excise Department during the budget session 2023-2024.

3. The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant would mainly contend that they are not questioning the announcement made by the Hon'ble Minister for closure of 500 liquor shops, however, the procedure for identifying the shops to be closed was not properly followed. Specifically, certain shops were closed before being identified. Therefore, the procedure adopted is erroneous and thus, the Writ Court ought to have considered these grounds.

4. However, the appellants, who are the building owners leased their commercial building to the TASMAC for handling liquor retail vending shops. Vacating the premises by the TASMAC Administration, who is a tenant is their prerogative and if at all any terms and conditions agreed upon, then the landlord may claim his entitlement, if any as per the terms and conditions agreed upon between the parties. However, a landlord cannot insist upon a tenant to occupy the building for liquor retail vending shops. Thus, the appellants have no locus standi to challenge the proceedings of the Managing Director, TASMAC, for closing 500 liquor retail vending shops.

5. That apart, it is a policy decision taken by the Government in the interest of public health, which is the constitutional mandate. Therefore, such a policy decision cannot be questioned by a landlord, who has leased out his property for running liquor retail vending shops.

6. This Court has considered the ill-effects of liquor retail vending shops run by the Government from a constitutional perspective in the case of S.Sellasamy vs. The District Collector, Office of the District Collector, Thiruvallur District and Others , (2017) SCC Online Madras 1969. The relevant paragraphs are extracted hereunder:

“5. Though the above said principle remains as a philosophy of the Constitution, the Articles constituted thereunder, provides separate clauses under Part IV, which enumerates certain Directive Principles of the State Policy. Apropos, it would be apposite to refer to 37, 38(1) and 47, which are extracted herein below:—

“37) Application of the principles contained in this Part-

The provisions contained in this part shall not be enforceable by any Court, but the Principles therein laid down are nevertheless fundamental in the governance of the Country and it shall be the duty of the States to apply these principles in making laws.

38) State to secure a social order for the promotion of welfare of the people- (1)

(1) The State shall strive to promote the welfare of the people by securing and protecting as effectively as it may a social order in which justice, social, economic and political, shall inform all the institutions of the national life. and

47) Duty of the State to raise the level of nutrition and the standard of living and to improve public health -

The State shall regard the raising of the level of nutrition and the standard of living of its people and the improvement of public health as among its primary duties and, in particular, the State shall endeavour to bring about prohibition of the consumption except for medicinal purposes of intoxicating drinks and of dr