The location of a bar must comply with legal distance requirements from places of worship to ensure public decorum and safety.

(Order of the Court was made by Dr.Anita Sumanth J.)

The petitioner seeks a Mandamus directing R1 to R5 to take appropriate action against R6 for running an illegal and unauthorized Tasmac Bar attached to Tasmac Shop No.4860 in Door No.11-13E, Eraniel Village, Kalkulam Taluk, Kanyakumari District (Tasmac shop/shop in question).

2.At the outset, and as a preliminary objection, Mr.Veera Kathiravan, learned Additional Advocate General, for Mr.S.Sivanesan, appearing for respondents 3 and 4, assails the maintainability of this Writ Petition on the ground that the petitioner is not a resident in the immediate vicinity of the shop and hence, he has no locus standi to file this Writ Petition.

3.We reject this contention as the petitioner is admittedly a resident of that village. In our view, immediate proximity to the Tasmac shop is not required for a petitioner to question an illegality in respect of that Tasmac shop, as long as the respondents do not establish that the Writ Petition is motivated in any other manner. This, the respondents have not done. Hence, the objection on the ground of maintainability is rejected.

4.The submissions of Mr.Brijesh Kishore, learned counsel appearing for petitioner, are to the effect that the running of the Tasmac bar is illegal. R6 was the highest bidder and was granted a licence on 07.02.2024, specific to the running of the shop in the same premises as the bar. However, the shop is not located within the bar premises, but is instead in an adjoining location.

5.That apart, the running of the shop is contrary to the Tamil Nadu Liquor Retail Vending (In Shop and Bars) Rules, 2003 (in short 'Rules'). He submits that there are schools in the vicinity as well as several temples, one of which shares a compound wall with the bar.

Hence, the location of the bar is itself contrary to the distance stipulations under the Rules, though that has not been challenged.

6.Per contra, learned counsels for the respondents assail the Writ Petition on the ground that both the shop and bar are in compliance with the Rules.

7.The required distance measurements have been complied with, and in any event, the shop has been in the same location for more than two decades. Hence, the respondents contend that there is no justification whatsoever in the present Writ Petition.

8.Both parties have filed maps of the area. We have perused the papers and studied the maps to understand the factual aspects of the matter. Our decision is as follows. A licence was granted to R6 to run a Tasmac retail vending shop bearing No.4860 in Door No.11-5A, Eraniel Village, Kalkulam Taluk, Kanyakumari District on 02.03.2020. Admittedly, the shop in question has been in existence for several years in that location. The challenge in the present Writ Petition does not really address the shop, but only the bar. To this extent, we would assuage the apprehensions of the respondents that the shop in question will be disturbed in any way and as we restrict ourselves in this order to the attached bar only.

9.The first argument advanced by the petitioner is that the bar is attached to the shop and must, therefore, be in the same premises. In the present case, the licence dated 13.02.2024 issued to the shop stipulates the address as Door No.11-5A, Eraniel Village, Kalkulam Taluk, Kanyakumari District.

10.The Rules provide for various aspects in respect of the running of Tasmac shops and bars and Rule 10 reads as follows