Trade in liquor is res extra commercium, meaning it is outside ordinary commerce; therefore, the State possesses the plenary power to regulate, monopolize, or close such trade to further public policy goals without being constrained by an individual's claim of legitimate expectation or procedural technicality.

ORDER

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 reads 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 haveapproached 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 res extra commercium. The petitioners are not even licensees of the excise authorities. They are only permitted by TASMAC itself to sell