Liquor Consumption Is Personal Choice, But Shops Causing Nuisance Must Be Checked: Madras High Court

Setting aside a recreational club's alcohol license, the Madras High Court observed that while consuming alcohol is the personal choice of a person, no nuisance should be caused to the persons living in a locality by granting license to operate liquor shop. “It is to be noted that the consumption of liquor is an individual choice of a person. However, such liquor shops causing nuisance or posing threat to the residents of that locality must be looked into,” the court said. The bench of Justice N Sathish Kumar and Justice M Jothiraman noted that while granting license, the authority should conduct inquiry and find that three primary conditions are satisfied, i.e, (i) the local needs justify the grant of license, (ii) the public interest does not suffer by grant of license, and (iii) the privilege (of license) is not misused. Noting that the authority had not considered these aspects, the court set aside the license. The court was hearing two public interest litigations filed against the grant of FL2 license to PONS Recreation Club in Thandalai Village, Madurai. The petitioners' case was that the locality, which was famous for the Jallikattu festival, was against the establishment of liquor outlets and had even conducted agitations against the same. It was submitted that the Panchayat had also passed two resolutions prohibiting the opening of TASMAC outlet by the State Government. While so, the petitioners argued that the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise Department had issued the FL2 license to the recreation club in violation of the existing rules and defeating the cultural values of the locality. It was argued that as per Rule 19(2) of the Tamil Nadu Liquor (License and Permits) Rules 1981, a club should be functioning for more than 3 years to be eligible to get license. In the present case, the petitioner argued that to circumvent this condition, the parties had changed the name of an existing sports recreational club, which was against the rules. it was also argued that the license was issued without conducting a general enquiry into local need and public interest. The State, on the other hand, argued that the license was issued after following due procedure. It was submitted that the club had been in existence since 2009 and had merely changed the name. It was also submitted that at the time of processing the application, there was no protest by the villagers and the agitation started after issuing the license. The court noted that the club was in existence only for one year and the police had given no objection certificate without specifying the name of the club for which it was being given. The court also noted that the village panchayat had already passed a resolution prohibiting the opening of the TASMAC outlet. The court noted that in Tamil Nadu, since private individuals were not permitted to run liquor outlets, they were setting up recreational clubs and obtaining a license to sell liquor, which was causing inconvenience to the residents in the locality and the road users. In the present case, the court noted that the bye-laws of the recreational club, which was registered as a society did not contain any specific clause/objective for selling liquor. The court noted that in the absence of such clause in the bye-laws, selling of liquor could not be permitted in the recreational clubs. Thus, noting that the license was granted without following the rules, without application of mind, without considering the general inquiry, and without considering the public interest, the court decided to set aside the order granting license and ruled accordingly. Counsel for Petitioner: Mr.M.Mohaboob Athif, for Mr.T.Palanichamy, Mr.R.Murali Counsel for Respondents: Mr.P.T.Thiraviam Government Advocate, Mr.H.Arumugam, Mr.K.Sanjai Ghandhi, Government Advocate, Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy, Senior Counsel, for M/S.Roy and Roy Associates, Mr.J.Ashok, Additional Government Pleader Case Title: T Sathiskumar v The State Government of Tamilnadu Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 136 Case No: WP.(MD)Nos.31562 & 31655 of 2025Click Here To Read/Download The Judgment

Liquor Consumption Is Personal Choice, But Shops Causing Nuisance Must Be Checked: Madras High Court

Upasana Sajeev

Tags