The Chennai High Court upheld the decision to close 717 TASMAC shops.

Tamil Nadu: The Chennai High Court has upheld the Tamil Nadu government’s decision to order the closure of 717 TASMAC liquor outlets across the state. The Court observed that this decision, taken by the government, is in consonance with existing regulations and the public interest, and directed the TASMAC administration to comply with the Chief Minister’s order.

This matter came to the fore when Saravanan, Mathiyarasan, and others—who had leased their premises to TASMAC for running liquor shops in Chennai—filed a petition in the High Court. Challenging the government’s decision, the petitioners claimed that the order was causing them financial loss.

On the 12th of the month, the Tamil Nadu government had announced that 717 TASMAC liquor outlets situated within a 500-meter radius of educational institutions and places of worship would be shut down within two weeks. Pursuant to this very order, the concerned outlets are currently being closed down in a phased manner.

The petitioners argued that they had leased their premises to TASMAC specifically for the sale of liquor, and that this lease agreement was renewed every 11 months. To this end, they had also invested substantial capital to convert their properties into facilities suitable for liquor outlets. They alleged that the abrupt closure of these shops was subjecting them to severe financial losses.

However, prioritizing the government’s decision, the Court clarified that it is within the State government’s prerogative to regulate the sale of liquor in the vicinity of public spaces, educational institutions, and religious sites. The Court further indicated that, with the public interest in mind, such decisions may be deemed necessary.

The government’s counsel argued that the objective behind this decision is to maintain social order and to restrict the availability of liquor in sensitive zones. The government maintains that the presence of liquor outlets in the immediate vicinity of schools and places of worship could give rise to social and moral issues.

Following this verdict, anxiety has mounted among tenants and traders associated with TASMAC, as they now face uncertainty regarding their investments and future income. Nevertheless, the Court’s stance makes it evident that the process of implementing the government’s order will proceed as planned. This entire episode has once again sparked a debate in the state regarding the balance between liquor policy, commercial contracts, and the public interest.