SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Mad) 1181

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G. R. SWAMINATHAN, J.
P.Selvaraj, S/o.Pandian - Appellant
Vs.
The Secretary to Government Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Fort St.George, Chennai - Respondent
WP No. 20837 of 2026
Decided On : 29-05-2026

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr.S.R.Jothinath
For the Respondent:Mr.T.Gowthaman, Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr.K.Sathish Government Counsel, Mr.K.Balakrishnan, Standing Counsel for TASMAC

The business of selling intoxicating liquor is res extra commercium, placing it outside ordinary commerce. Consequently, no fundamental right to trade exists, and the state has plenary power to regulate or close such businesses without being fettered by doctrines of legitimate expectation.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 19(1)(g) and 47 - Legislation regarding retail vending - Trade in intoxicating liquor - Res extra commercium - State has absolute authority to monopolise, regulate, or shutter liquor outlets in accordance with public policy - Private parties possess no fundamental or unrestricted right to engage in such trade - Procedural requirements for termination of ordinary commercial contracts and doctrines regarding legitimate expectation are inapplicable to this sector. (Paras 9, 10, 12)

(B) Licensing - Termination of licence - Refund of fees - Premature cessation of operations - Licensees providing ancillary services are entitled to a proportionate refund of fees for the period beyond the actual operation of the shop - Authorities mandated to process individual representations for fee and deposit refunds. (Para 13)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged the administrative decision to shut local liquor outlets, which resulted in the automatic closure of his ancillary bar business. The petitioner claimed the action was arbitrary, lacked proper notice, and violated his expectation to continue the licensed activity until the contract term concluded.

Findings of Court:
The court determined that the trade is inherently injurious to public health and welfare and classified as outside ordinary commerce. The state's power to close outlets is not restricted by standard commercial expectations of fairness. Proportional refunds of unutilised licence fees were ordered to ensure equitable reconciliation.

Issues: Whether the government's unilateral closure of liquor outlets can be challenged by ancillary licensees on the grounds of administrative fairness or the expectation of business continuity.

Ratio Decidendi: Trade in liquor being res extra commercium, it confers no fundamental right to engage in trade. State policy decisions regarding such business are not subject to the same procedural rigour as ordinary commerce, though the government is obligated to provide a proportionate refund for unutilised licence fees.

Result: Writ petition dismissed with specific directions for the refund of fees.

Table of Content
1. factual background involving tasmac retail liquor shop closures. (Para 1 , 2)
2. the liquor trade is res extra commercium, limiting constitutional challenges to state action. (Para 3)

ORDER :

G. R. SWAMINATHAN, J.

Heard both sides.

2. The writ petitioner is a bar licensee. The authorities have taken a policy decision to close down the TASMAC shops, to which the bar is attached. The grievance of the writ petitioner is that without serving any proceedings such an arbitrary action has been taken. Hence, the writ petition has been filed for directing the authorities not to take such coercive action of closure or ceiling of the shops and the attached bars.

3. The learned Additional Government Pleader points out that similar writ petitions were filed by the licensees in W.P.No.14245 of 2026 and etc., batch, wherein, the Madurai Bench of this Court has declined to grant the relief sought for by the writ petitioners therein. I am inclined to adopt the very same approach. For ease of reference, the order passed in W.P.No.14245 of 2026 and etc., batch is extracted below as follows:

"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 Rule 8, 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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top