ORDER :

MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, J.

1. Petitioner challenges the location of TASMAC shop stipulated by the Corporation, which is being run by the sixth respondent as a club under FL2 license, by providing facility of consumption of liquor to its members.

2. The challenge to the location of the club, providing facility of consumption of liquor under FL2 license, is essentially based on the allegation that the bar is situated on the side of the road and therefore, it grossly violates the directions issued by the Supreme Court on 15.12.2016, as subsequently modified vide order dated 31.03.2017.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner would submit that as against the requirement that the building should be situated at a distance of 500 meters from the outer edge of the National or State Highway or of a service lane along the highway and 220 meters in case of village panchayat, the club is just on the brink of the road, which is, admittedly, a State Highway, Palladam to Cochin State Highway (163).

4. On the other hand, learned State counsel would submit that after the direction was issued by this Court, inspection was carried out and it is found that if the route, which is now provided to have an access to the building as available on the spot, is adhered to, it is more than 220 meters from the main road, as the access to the gate is now provided at the back of the building. The submission, therefore, is that even if the building is situated on the side of the road, since it is not possible to enter the building from the road directly, but only from behind the building through circuitous road, the operation of FL2 license may not be treated as violative of the directions of the Supreme Court.

5. Learned counsel appearing for sixth respondent club, referring to various orders passed by the Supreme Court on 15.12.2016 and 31.03.2017, clarifications issued thereafter on 11.07.2017 and 23.02.2018 and the order dated 29.01.2024, as also the provisions contained in Rule 8 of the Tamil Nadu Liquor Retail Vending (In Shops and Bars) Rules, 2003, would submit that the spirit behind the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 15.12.2016 is to address dangers to life and the safety caused by drunken driving on National and State Highways and it specifically deals with the problem from the perspective of the availability of alcohol. Therefore, even if the building is situated on the side of the Highway, if the entry to the building is so provided that one has to take the long circuitous route, which is more than 220 metres, the order of the Court is complied with in its letter and spirit.

6. Learned counsel would further submit that consistent with the directives of the Supreme Court, the front signage and sign boards have been removed and now, one who is passing by the Palladam- Cochin State Highway, cannot make out that there is any bar. He would next submit that the conditions which have been incorporated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in various orders may not be applicable to those cases where the entry to the bar itself is restricted to the members of the Club. Therefore, even if a passerby comes, there is no question of providing him liquor, as, he does not happen to be the member of the Club. In any case, the direction of the Supreme Court or the provisions contained in the Rules are not violated.

7. The photographs and google maps, which were filed by petitioner along with petition, clearly show that there is a bar raised by sixth respondent on the main road, as the sign board clearly reads. The yellow colour building shown in the photograph is the place where FL2 license bar is running. The photographs as well as google map, on the face of it, show that FL2 bar unit is situated just on the side of the State Highway.

8. Before proceeding further with regard to application of the order of the Supreme Court, we may first deal with the stand of the sixth respondent that it is not running liquor shop, but a club. In our view, sixth respondent has