TASMAC shop 55.7 metres from National Highway ordered closed; Madras HC bars FL-2 licence for nearby club

The petitioners filed a public interest writ petition under Article 226 seeking closure of TASMAC Shop No.10215 at Vellithirumutham Village, Trichy, and restraint against granting an FL-2 licence to T.V.L. Madurai Recreation Club proposed at Survey No.311, on the ground that both establishments were situated within the prohibited distance from the Trichy–Chennai National Highway and that the club licence could be misused to operate as a liquor outlet.

The official respondents contended that the TASMAC shop had been permitted after considering the applicable distance requirements and that the FL-2 application was still under scrutiny.

Pursuant to the Court’s interim direction, the District Collector caused an inspection and report to be filed.

The report recorded that the TASMAC shop was 55.7 metres and the proposed recreation club 71 metres from the relevant service/approach road, measured aerially.

1. Whether TASMAC Shop No.10215, being situated approximately 55.7 metres from the National Highway/service road, could lawfully continue notwithstanding the Supreme Court’s highway-distance restrictions concerning liquor outlets.

2. Whether the proposed FL-2 licence for the ninth respondent’s recreation club, situated approximately 71 metres from the National Highway/service road, could be granted consistently with the same restrictions and applicable State policy.

3. Whether the petitioners were entitled to directions for closure of the existing TASMAC shop and restraint against granting the proposed FL-2 licence.

The Court applied Article 226 of the Constitution and the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Tamil Nadu v. K. Balu, (2017) 6 SCC 715, that liquor outlets must not be located along, visible from, or directly accessible from National or State Highways and, in areas governed by local bodies having a population of 20,000 or less, must ordinarily be at least 220 metres from the outer edge of the highway or service lane.

The Court relied on R. Gopinath v. District Collector, 2016-1-LW-663, and subsequent coordinate Bench decisions for the rule that the relevant distance is the shortest/aerial distance, not the distance travelled by road.

It further relied on G.O. (Ms.) No.32, Home, Prohibition and Excise (VI) Department, dated 21 May 2018, which requires establishments outside specified municipal areas to comply with the Supreme Court’s highway-distance criteria even when seeking licences such as FL-2.

The Court also approved the regulatory directions in Perumal v. Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, W.P. (MD) No.8038 of 2019 batch, dated 18 August 2025, requiring supervision and inspection of recreation clubs to prevent their functioning as liquor shops in disguise.

The Court treated both the TASMAC shop and the proposed FL-2 recreation club as establishments subject to the highway-distance restrictions.

Although the road-travel distance to the premises was approximately 1.4 kilometres, the legally relevant measurement was the aerial distance from the highway or service road.

Since the TASMAC shop was only 55.7 metres away and the proposed club only 71 metres away, both were substantially within the applicable 220-metre prohibition and therefore inconsistent with K. Balu.

The fact that an FL-2 licence permits service of liquor only to eligible club members did not exempt the proposed club from the distance restriction; the Court held that the restriction applied equally to such a recreation club under the State Government’s policy.

The petitioners’ apprehension regarding misuse of the club licence also acquired significance in light of the regulatory concerns identified in Perumal, although the decisive ground was the non-compliance with the highway-distance requirement.

Respondents 2 and 5 to 7 were directed to close TASMAC Shop No.10215 forthwith, while respondents 1 to 4 and 6 to 8 were restrained from granting an FL-2 licence to the ninth respondent’s recreation club at Survey No.311.

The authorities were left free to relocate the TASMAC shop to another location in accordance with law and binding judicial decisions, and to consider any fresh FL-2 application if the proposed location complied with the applicable legal requirements.

W.M.P. (MD) No.14323 of 2026 was ordered and W.M.P. (MD) No.14327 of 2026 was closed; there was no order as to costs.