Madras High Court Orders Closure Of TASMAC Shop Near National Highway, Says Shortest Distance Must Be Considered For Liquor Ban

Though it was argued that the distance to be travelled by vehicle to reach the TASMAC shop and a proposed recreational club was 1.4 km, which was within the limits prescribed by the Supreme Court, the bench of Justice CV Karthikeyan and Justice R Sakthivel held that while considering distance, the actual distance that a person needs to travel was insignificant and the aerial distance would be taken into consideration. The court thus noted that only the shortest distance will be considered for calculating the distance of the liquor shop from the National Highway.

“It is settled legal position that while reckoning distance in the present context, the actual distance that a vehicle / person needs to travel to reach the liquor retail units are insignificant and only the aerial distance is to be taken into consideration [See Judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in R.Gopinath -vs- The District Collector, reported in 2016-1-LW-663 for the proposition that, in the present context, distance means the shortest distance…The aerial distance of the TASMAC Shop No.10215 and the ninth respondent's proposed recreational club from the National Highway being 55.7 meters and 71 meters, their location is not in consonance with the afore-cited Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court,” the court said.

The court was hearing a public interest litigation seeking directions to the authorities to close an existing TASMAC shop near the highway and to further prevent the authorities from issuing a No-Objection Certificate or license for locating FL-2 Recreational Club proposed to be established near the TASMAC shop.

The petitioner had argued that the TASMAC shop was located within 30 meters from the National Highways. The petitioners also submitted that they apprehended that the authorities would grant an FL-2 License for setting up a recreational club situated 40 meters from the Trichy-Chennai National Highway, permitting it to serve alcohol.

The petitioners argued that the grant of approval would not only be against the provisions contained in the Tamil Nadu Liquor Retail Vending (In Shops And Bars) Rules, 1981 but also contrary to various Judgments of the Supreme Court and the High Court. It was also argued that if an FL-2 license was issued to the recreational club, there were chances of misuse.

The State, however, submitted that the District Collector had given permission for running the TASMAC shop only after considering its distance from the national highway and there was no need to close the shop. With respect to apprehension of granting FL2 license for the proposed recreational club, the State informed that the matter was still under scrutiny and no license had been issued yet. The State also assured that even if the license was granted and it was found that the same was being misused to serve liquor to anyone who was not a club member, appropriate action would be taken as per law.

The court had directed the Collector to visit the premises and file a report on whether the TASMAC shop was located within the prohibited limits from the National Highways. The court took note of the report in which it was stated that the TASMAC shop was 55.7 meters from the service road and the recreational club was 71 meters from the service road.

The court noted that as per the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Tamil Nadu v K Balu and another, no liquor shop should be situated facing the Highways or directly accessible from the Highways. Further, even if a shop exists, it should be at least 220 meters away from the Highways.

Thus, noting that the present TASMAC shop was situated within the prohibited limits, the court ordered its closure. Further, since the proposed club was also within the prohibited limits, the court restricted the authorities from granting an FL2 license.

However, the court added that the parties were at liberty to relocate the TASMAC shop to any other location, in accordance with law and binding judicial precedents. The court also gave liberty to the authorities to consider a fresh application for FL2 license, if the proposed location of the club was in tune with law.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. S. Ramakrishnan for T. Palanisamy

Counsel for Respondent: Mr. M. P. Senthil, Government Pleader Mr. I. Murugesan, Counsel for State (Criminal side) Mr. S. Sivanesan, Standing Counsel Mr. A. N. Ramanathan

Case Title: Mohanraj and Another v The Commisisoner and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 437

Case No: WP (MD) No 19368 of 2026