The liquor trade is classified as 'res extra commercium,' meaning it is outside ordinary commerce and lacks fundamental trade protections; therefore, the State possesses wide discretion to regulate or close retail liquor outlets without being constrained by doctrines of legitimate expectation or strict commercial procedural requirements.

ORDER :

D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.

All these writ petitions are connected to each other and, as such, are taken up and disposed of by this common order.

2. The factual background in which these writ petitions arise is that, in exercise of its powers under the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937 and the rules framed thereunder, the State of Tamil Nadu has monopolized retail liquor vending throughout the State. For that purpose, it has been establishing retail liquor vending shops through the State-owned corporation, namely, Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Limited (TASMAC).

3. It is the contention of the petitioners that following a change of Popular Government, by way of a press release, an announcement was made that 717 retail liquor vending shops were to be closed. These petitioners have licences to sell snacks and water bottles and to collect empty bottles in the respective shops that are now being chosen and closed. The licence is awarded by a tender. The licence period is up to 30.06.2026. When the petitioners had legitimate expectations of carrying on their avocation up to 30.06.2026, the shops were suddenly and abruptly closed, without any opportunity or any proper written order. The petitioners were consequently ordered to shut the bars and close down their business. Under these circumstances, the petitioners have approached this Court. Apart from this, some of the landlords who have let out their shops to run the TASMAC retail outlet are also before this Court.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that Rule 8 of the Tamil Nadu Liquor Retail Vending (in Shops and Bars) Rules, 2003 (hereinafter Rules), prohibits shops from being located within 50 metres and 100 metres, respectively, in municipal areas and other areas, with reference to educational institutions, places of worship, etc. However, in contravention of the Rules, the Government has now decided to close shops up to a distance of 500 metres. Without amending , this cannot be carried out. Further, without taking a proper decision, the entire process has been undertaken solely on the Hon’ble Chief Minister's announcement and the issuance of a press release. Therefore, through executive action, the same ought not to have been done.

5. It is their further contention that the selection of the shops for closure has not been properly carried out, and that some of the shops have been picked and chosen arbitrarily. The information on their location is also not recorded correctly, and the shops are being arbitrarily closed. Therefore, the petitioners pray that the respondents be prohibited from closing these shops. In addition, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the licensees also submits that some of them have paid the entire licence fee up to 30.06.2026. Therefore, when the licensees abruptly ended 40 days before, the proportionate fee had to be refunded to them.

6. Per contra, the learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State of Tamil Nadu would submit that the entire business of liquor sale is res extra commercium. The petitioners are not even licensees of the excise authorities. They are only permitted by TASMAC itself to sell snacks and water and to collect the empty bottles. As per licence condition No. 2, their activity will come to an end as and when the shop is closed. Only with that condition have the petitioners had become licensees. As far as the fee is concerned, it has to be paid on a month-on-month basis. Therefore, if only some of the