Justice S.M. Subramaniam and Justice A.D. Maria Clete, Madras High Court, Madurai Bench
Madras High Court: Contradictory For Welfare State To Establish More Hospitals On One Hand And Liquor Shops On The Other
|The Madras High Court directed the closure of a TASMAC shop situated close to a school.
The Madras High Court held that it is contradictory for a welfare Government to establish more hospitals on the one hand and simultaneously establish TASMAC shops on the other.
The Court directed the closure of a TASMAC shop situated close to a school. The Court held that the mere adherence to the distance criterion fulfilled by a TASMAC Shop is insufficient when certain mitigating circumstances are raised by an aggrieved citizen.
A Division Bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice AD Maria Clete held, “It is contradictory for a welfare Government to establish more hospitals on the one hand and simultaneously establish TASMAC shops on the other. This is not in consonance with constitutional ethos. When the right to health is a fundamental right, the State must ensure that the prohibition is slowly implemented in a phased manner to reduce harm to the public health. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that mere guidelines/rules fixing certain distances cannot be the sole criterion. In the present case, the very same road is used by the children to reach their School and it serves as a direct pathway. Consequently, the TASMAC shop would undoubtedly cause public nuisance to the road users, children attending the School and persons going to Church etc.”
Advocate S Ramakrishnan appeared for the Petitioner, while Standing Counsel N. Vignesh represented the Respondent.
Brief Facts
The Petitioner stated that the Respondents were running the subject TASMAC shop on a road used by the children to reach a School and that it was causing a nuisance to the children and other road users, making it difficult for them to use the road freely and peacefully.
Court’s Reasoning
The High Court held, “This Court is of the considered view that mere adherence to the distance criterion is insufficient when certain mitigating circumstances are raised by an aggrieved citizen.”
The Bench remarked, “Article 47 of the Constitution of India directs that the State shall regard the raising of the level of nutrition and the standard of living of its people and the improvement of public health as among its primary duties and in particular the State shall endeavour to bring about prohibition of the consumption except for medical purposes of intoxicating drinks and of drugs which are injurious to health.”
Therefore, the Court stated that “it is a constitutional philosophy and the Directive principles insist that a welfare Government should strive wholeheartedly to enforce prohibition, rather than establish more TASMAC shops which adversely affect public health.”
The Bench stated, “Undoubtedly, a TASMAC shop may cause a nuisance to the road users in the locality, particularly, to the children during School hours…It is the duty of the State to ensure that no such nuisance is caused to the citizens and road users.”
Consequently, the Court ordered, “In view of the fact that the closure of one TASMAC shop would not cause any prejudice but would rather benefit the public at large, this Court is inclined to consider the relief sought for. Consequently, the respondents are directed to forthwith close the TASMAC shop No.3110 situated at Trichy Road, Dindigul Town, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.”
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Petition.
Cause Title: K.Kannan v. The Managing Director & Ors. (W.P. (MD)No.2919 of 2025)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates S.Ramakrishnan and P. Vetrivvel
Respondent: Standing Counsel N. Vignesh; Additional Government Pleader J. Ashok