Contradictory for welfare government to establish more hospitals on and simultaneously open TASMAC liquor shops, says HC

Madras High Court orders closure of Tasmac shop near school, emphasizing public health over liquor sales.

It is contradictory for a welfare government to establish more hospitals on the one hand and simultaneously establish Tasmac liquor shops on the other hand. This is not in consonance with Constitutional ethos, observed the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court while directing the closure of a Tasmac shop in Dindigul.

A Division Bench of Justices S.M. Subramaniam and A.D. Maria Clete said when 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 public health.

The court was hearing the public interest litigation petition filed by K. Kannan of Dindigul. The petitioner sought a direction to the authorities to close a Tasmac shop located on Tiruchi road in Dindigul. He said the road was used by school children. The children and other road users were finding it difficult to use the road freely and peacefully, he said.

In the counter affidavit, Dindigul District Tasmac Manager submitted that the claim the liquor shop was located close to school, health and religious institutions was incorrect. The shop was located within Corporation limits, where the prohibited distance was 50 meters as per Rule 8 of Tamil Nadu Liquor Retail Vending (in Shops and Bars) Rules, 2003. Since the Tasmac shop was situated in a commercial area, the proviso to Rule 8 of the Rules states that the distance restriction shall not apply.

The court said it was of the considered view that mere guidelines and rules fixing certain distances cannot be the sole criterion. In the present case, the road was used by children to reach their school and it served 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 the Church.

The judges said, the rules setting minimum distances are regulatory thresholds, but they do not exhaust all public health and welfare concerns. Mere compliance with the distance rule does not validate a location if the broader environment is harmful. Undoubtedly, a Tasmac shop may cause 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.

Besides, Article 47 of the Constitution directs that the State shall regard raising the level of nutrition and standard of living of its people and 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. 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.