2026:MHC:3660W. P. ( M D ) N o . 1 9 3 6 8 o f 2 0 2 6

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

RESERVED ON : 18 / 08 / 2026

DELIVERED ON : 08 / 09 / 2026

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V. KARTHIKEYAN

AND

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVEL

W.P. (MD) No.19368 of 2026

and

W.M.P. (MD) Nos.14323 and 14327 of 2026

1. Mohanraj,

S/o.Kanagaraj,

No.30, Indira Nagar,

Woraiyur, Trichy District.

2. Rajasekar,

S/o.Balraj,

No.3/100, Nadu Theru,

Madakkudi, Samayapuram,

Lalgudi Taluk,

Trichy District. ... Petitioners

Versus

1. The Commissioner,

Prohibition and Excise Department,

Elilazham, Chepauk,

Chennai-600 005.

2. The District Collector,

Office of the District Collector,

Trichy District.

Page No.1 of 21

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

2026:MHC:3660W. P. ( M D ) N o . 1 9 3 6 8 o f 2 0 2 6

3. The Commissioner of Police,

Office of the Commissioner of Police,

Pudukottai Road,

Trichy District.

4. The Assistant Commissioner of Police,

The Office of the Assistant Commissioner of Police,

Srirangam Sub Division, Trichy City.

5. The District Manager,

Office of the District Manager,

TASMAC, SIPCOT Building,

Thuvvakudi, Trichy District.

6. The Assistant Commissioner,

Prohibition and Excise Department,

District Collector Office,

Trichy District.

7. The Divisional Excise Officer,

Divisional Excise Office,

West Taluk Office,

Trichy District.

8. The Inspector of Police,

Srirangam Police Station,

Srirangam, Trichy District.

9. The Secretary,

T.V.L. Madurai Recreation Club,

S.No.311, D.No.16/1, Block No.4,

Nearnammakkal lorry services,

Vellithirumutham Village, Srirangam Taluk,

Trichy District. ... Respondents

PRAYER in W.P. (MD) No.19368 of 2026: Writ Petition filed under

Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as a Public Interest Litigation,

Page No.2 of 21

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

2026:MHC:3660W. P. ( M D ) N o . 1 9 3 6 8 o f 2 0 2 6

praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 2

& 5 to forthwith close the existing TASMAC Shop No.10215, situated at

Vellithirumutham Village - Trichy to Chennai Highways Road,

Srirangam Taluk, Trichy District and consequently restraining the

respondents 1 to 4 & 6 to 8 from in any manner issuing No Objection

Certificate or licence for locating the FL-2 Recreation Club in the

property comprised in S.No.311, at Door No.16/1, Block No.4 - Trichy to

Chennai Highways, Vellithirumutham Village, Srirangam Taluk, Trichy

District in the light of the Judgement passed in W.P. (MD) No.21149 of

2025, dated August 22, 2025 by considering petitioner's representation

dated February 24, 2026.

PRAYER in W.M.P. (MD) No.14323 of 2026: Writ Miscellaneous

Petition filed praying to permit the petitioners to file a single writ petition

under Rule 15(2) of the Madras High Court Writ Rules, 2023 to regulate

proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and thus

render justice.

PRAYER in W.M.P. (MD) No.14327 of 2026: Writ Miscellaneous

Petition filed praying to grant an Order of interim injunction, restraining

respondents 1 to 4 and 5 to 8 from in any manner issuing No Objection

Certificate or licence for locating the FL-2 Recreation Club in the

Page No.3 of 21

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

2026:MHC:3660W. P. ( M D ) N o . 1 9 3 6 8 o f 2 0 2 6

property comprised in S.No.311 at Door No.16/1, Block No.4 - Trichy

Chennai Highways – Vellithirumutham Village, Srirangam Taluk, Trichy

District.

For Petitioners :Mr.S.Ramakrishnan

for T.Palanisamy

For Respondent

Nos.1, 2 6 & 7

:Mr.M.P.Senthil,

Government Pleader

For Respondent

Nos.3, 4 & 8

:

Mr.I.Murugesan,

Counsel for State

(Criminal side)

For Respondent

No.5

:

Mr.S.Sivanesan,

Standing Counsel

For Respondent

No.9

:

Mr.A.N.Ramanathan

*****

O R D E R

R.SAKTHIVEL, J.

This is a Public Interest Litigation filed in the nature of Writ of

Mandamus, seeking to direct the Respondent Nos.2 and 5 to forthwith

close the existing TASMAC [Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation]

Shop No.10215, situated at Vellithirumutham Village, Trichy to Chennai

Highways Road, Srirangam Taluk, Trichy District, and restrict the

Respondent Nos.1 to 4 and 6 to 8 from in any manner issuing No

Objection Certificate or licence for locating FL-2 Recreation Club in the

Page No.4 of 21

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

2026:MHC:3660W. P. ( M D ) N o . 1 9 3 6 8 o f 2 0 2 6

property comprised in Survey No.311, at Door No.16/1, Block No.4,

Trichy to Chennai Highways, Vellithirumutham Village, Srirangam

Taluk, Trichy District, by considering the petitioner's representation

dated February 24, 2026.

BRIEF FACTS:

2. The writ petitioners allege that TASMAC Shop No.10215, a

liquor retail shop, is situate within 30 meters from National Highways.

They also apprehend that the respondents are going to, in favour of ninth

respondent, accord permission for locating recreational club in Survey

No.311 situate 40 meters from Trichy-Chennai National Highways and

issue "FL-2 license", a licence issued in favour of non-proprietary

recreational clubs to possess and serve liquor to eligible their members.

According to the petitioners, the above would be contrary to the

Judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as the relevant Rules in

force. Hence, the Writ Petition.

ARGUMENTS

3. Mr.S.Ramakrishnan, learned Counsel appearing for the writ

petitioners would submit that TASMAC Shop No.10215 is situate within

30 meters from National Highway which is not only against the

Page No.5 of 21

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

2026:MHC:3660W. P. ( M D ) N o . 1 9 3 6 8 o f 2 0 2 6

provisions contained in the Tamil Nadu Liquor Retail Vending (In Shops

And Bars) Rules, 1981 but also contrary to various Judgments of Hon'ble

Supreme Court and of this Court. He would further submit that, the

petitioners reliably learnt that the official respondents are going to accord

permission to ninth respondent's request for FL-2 license for their

recreational club in Survey No.311. Said survey number is situate within

55 meters from National Highway. The petitioner's main concern is that,

practically, there exist no proper mechanism to check on such

recreational clubs. If FL-2 license is granted in favour of the ninth

respondent's recreational club, there are high chances for its misuse. The

writ petitioners as responsible citizens concerned about the society,

reasonably apprehends that the FL-2 license, if granted, would be

misused to serve liquor to general public, especially those travelling in

the National Highway, in the guise of serving liquor to their members.

Such a practice would ultimately harm the general public in various

manners and would be in contravention of the Tamil Nadu Liquor

[Licence and Permit] Rules, 1981. Accordingly, he would pray to allow

the writ petition and thereby order to close the liquor retail shop run by

the TASMAC namely TASMAC Shop No.10215 as well as direct the

official respondents not to give FL-2 license to ninth respondent's

Page No.6 of 21

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

2026:MHC:3660W. P. ( M D ) N o . 1 9 3 6 8 o f 2 0 2 6

recreational club.

4. Per contra, Mr.M.P.Senthil, learned Government Advocate

appearing for the Respondent Nos.1, 2, 6 and 7 would submit that the

District Collector, Trichy accorded permission for running TASMAC

Shop No.10215 only after considering its distance from the National

Highway in light of the relevant Rules. Hence, there is no need to close

the liquor retail shop. Further he would submit that, ninth respondent's

application for FL-2 license is still under scrutiny and no such licence

has been granted yet. Further, the recreational club is situate 55 meters

away from the National Highway. Further, the FL-2 license permits

liquor possession and service only to the eligible members of the

recreational club. If it is found that the same is misused and liquor is

served to anyone other than the eligible members of the recreational club,

appropriate action would be taken as per law. Stating so, he would pray

to dismiss the Writ Petition as devoid of merits.

5. Mr.I.Murugesan, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent

Nos.3,4 and 8 would reiterate the submissions of Mr.M.P.Senthil, learned

Government Advocate.

Page No.7 of 21

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

2026:MHC:3660W. P. ( M D ) N o . 1 9 3 6 8 o f 2 0 2 6

6. Mr.Sivanesan, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the fifth

respondent would submit that TASMAC Shop No.10215 is situate 71

meters away from the National Highway which is beyond the distance

prescribed by Rule 8 of the Liquor Retail Vending Rules, 1981. Hence,

there exist no reason to close the liquor retail vending shop. Accordingly,

he would pray to dismiss the Writ Petition.

7. Mr.A.N.Ramanathan, learned Counsel appearing for the ninth

respondent would submit that their recreational club is situate 1.5 Kms

away from the Trichy-Chennai National Highways. Further, the

recreational club is going to serve liquors only to the members of the

club, who are eligible to consume liquor. Hence, the writ petitioners'

apprehensions are unfounded and unreasonable. This writ petition has

been filed with an ulterior motive only to harass the ninth respondent's

club. Accordingly, he would pray to dismiss the Writ Petition.

DISCUSSION AND DECISION

8. This Court has considered the submissions made on either side

and perused the materials available on record.

Page No.8 of 21

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

2026:MHC:3660W. P. ( M D ) N o . 1 9 3 6 8 o f 2 0 2 6

9. In the Judgment relied on by the writ petitioner in their prayer

namely Perumal -vs- The Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise in

W.P. (MD) No.8038 of 2019 etc., (batch cases), dated August 18, 2025,

which has also been reported in MANU/TN/4144/2025, a Co-ordinate

Bench of this Court held that recreational club are operating primarily as

liquor shops, circumventing the State's TASMAC system. The Court

went on to issue certain directions which reads thus:

"19. In view of the facts and circumstances of the

case, this Court is inclined to issue the following

directions:

(i) The Inspector General of Registration is

directed to ensure that the Recreation Clubs

selling liquor have incorporated a specific clause

in their by- laws, which must be approved by due

verification and in accordance with the laws in

force. In the absence of any such clause in the by-

laws, registration of such Recreation Clubs is to

be cancelled.

(ii) In view of the facts and circumstances,

this Court is of the view that it would be

appropriate to suo motu implead the Director

General of Police as a party respondent in this

matter. Accordingly, the Director General of

Police, No. 4, Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore,

Page No.9 of 21

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

2026:MHC:3660W. P. ( M D ) N o . 1 9 3 6 8 o f 2 0 2 6

Chennai-600 004, is suo motu impleaded as a

party respondent in W.P.(MD) No. 7409 of 2024.

Mr.T.Senthil Kumar, learned Additional Public

Prosecutor, takes notice for the newly impleaded

Director General of Police. Registry is directed to

carry out the impleadment.

(iii) The Director General of Police is

directed to ensure that periodical surprise

inspections are conducted by the police officials in

the Recreation Clubs and its licences, documents

and the activities inside the Clubs are verified and

in the event of identifying any offence or illegality,

the offenders are to be prosecuted. The criminal

actions taken by the police authorities must be

intimated to the concerned District Registrar of

the Registration Department for the purpose of

initiation of action under the Tamil Nadu Societies

Registration Act, 1975.

(iv) The competent authorities, on receipt of

information or complaint, are directed to conduct

inspections in the Recreation Clubs and verify the

validity of the FL2 licences and the conditions

stipulated therein and initiate appropriate actions

in the manner known to law.

Page No.10 of 21

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

2026:MHC:3660W. P. ( M D ) N o . 1 9 3 6 8 o f 2 0 2 6

(v) The activities of these Recreation Clubs,

genuinity of the objectives approved in the by-laws

under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act,

1975, all are to be monitored closely by the police

authorities, authorities of the Registration

Department and Prohibition and Excise

Department, so as to ensure the right to life of the

residents in that locality and in order to maintain

public health by the State, which is a mandate

under the Constitution of India and the

fundamental rights ensured to the citizens in

general."

9.1. These directions were intended to ensure that recreational club

are functioning as recreational club and check on the liquor shops

functioning in the disguise of recreational clubs There is no quarrel with

these directions.

10. Moving on, when the present matter was listed on July 23,

2026, this Court passed the following Order:

''The second respondent / District Collector,

Trichy District, shall visit the ninth respondent

premises / T.V.L. Madurai Recreation Club at

S.No.311, D.No.16/1, Block No.4, near Namakkal

Page No.11 of 21

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

2026:MHC:3660W. P. ( M D ) N o . 1 9 3 6 8 o f 2 0 2 6

Lorry Services, Vellithirumutham Village,

Srirangam Taluk, Trichy District, and file a report

as to whether the TASMAC shop is located within

the prohibited limit from the National Highways,

as the crow flies, and the distance from the

National Highways road to the outer wall of the

TASMAC shop facing the Highways road. The

second respondent shall also ensure that the

board showing the TASMAC shop is available

close to the National Highways road is removed

and determine the distance from the entrance of

the shop to the National Highways road for public

access. The report shall be filed.''

11. Pursuant to the above Order, as per the directions of the

District Collector, Trichy, the Tahsildar, Trichy along with Surveyor

inspected the TASMAC Shop No.10215 as well as the property location

for the recreational club, which are both in the same survey number viz.,

Survey No.311. In the said report, it has been stated that the TASMAC

Shop No.10215 is situate 55.7 meters from the service road and the

recreational club's location is 71 meters from the approach road (service

road). TSLR Register and a snap of Map, which appears to be taken from

'Google Earth', to show the lie and location of the TASMAC Shop as well

Page No.12 of 21

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

2026:MHC:3660W. P. ( M D ) N o . 1 9 3 6 8 o f 2 0 2 6

as the proposed recreation club are annexed along with the report. That

apart, the writ petitioner as well as the ninth respondent has filed a

topography sketch to show the lie and location of TASMAC Shop No.

10215 and the recreational club.

12. At this point, it is necessary to refer to the Judgment of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of TamilNadu & ors. -vs-

K.Balu & another reported in (2017) 6 SCC 715. The relevant portion

of the said Judgement is extracted hereunder:

''25. After considering the submissions which have

been urged before this Court, we are of the view

that there are three areas where the rigours of the

directions which have been issued by this Court

may require to be suitably modulated without

affecting the basic principle underlying the

judgment. The first is in relation to limits of local

bodies with a population of less than 20,000

people. In such areas, it has been urged before

this Court that a State highway is the main

thorough fare area along which the township has

developed in small clusters of 20,000 or less.

Hence, the requirement of maintaining a distance

of 500 meter from the outer edge of the highway

or service lane may result in a situation where the

Page No.13 of 21

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

2026:MHC:3660W. P. ( M D ) N o . 1 9 3 6 8 o f 2 0 2 6

entire local area may fall within the prohibited

distance. We find some substance in the

submission. We must emphatically clarify that

even in such areas falling under local bodies with

a population of less than 20,000, no license for the

sale of liquor should be issued along either a

National or State Highway or a service lane along

the highway. Similarly, the sale of liquor should

be from a point which is neither visible from a

National or State highway or which is directly

accessible from a National or State highway.

However, in such a situation, the prohibited

distance should in our view be restricted to 220

meter from the outer edge of the National or State

highway or of a service lane along the highway.

We accordingly direct that the following

paragraph shall be inserted, after direction (v)

contained in para 29.5 of the operative directions

of this court in the judgment dated 15.12.2016

namely : '' In the case of areas comprised in local

bodies with a population of 20,000 people or less,

the distance of 500m shall stand reduced to

220m.''"

[Emphasis supplied by this Court]

Page No.14 of 21

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

2026:MHC:3660W. P. ( M D ) N o . 1 9 3 6 8 o f 2 0 2 6

12.1. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has emphasised that no liquor

shop must be situate facing or directly accessible from the Highways at

all. It has further observed that in case of liquor shops situate in local

body's jurisdiction, they must be at least 220 meters away from the

Highways.

13. Coming to the case on hand, the District Collector's Report and

the other materials presented before this Court (mentioned above), would

clearly depict that the subject liquor retail vending shop run by TASMAC

is situate 55.7 meters from the National Highway and the ninth

respondent's recreation club is situated about 71 meters therefrom. The

aforesaid distances are the aerial distances. It could also be seen from the

report that the distance that needs to be travelled by a vehicle to reach the

TASMAC Shop No.10215 or the ninth respondent's proposed

recreational club from the National Highway is about 1.4 Kms which is

1400 meters. 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,

Page No.15 of 21

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

2026:MHC:3660W. P. ( M D ) N o . 1 9 3 6 8 o f 2 0 2 6

distance means the shortest distance. The said Judgment has been

followed by two another Co-ordinate Bench of this Court for the same

proposition, in their Judgment dated March 17, 2016 made in Narayan -

vs- The Chief Secretary, made in W.P. No.7505 of 2013 and Judgment

dated February 13, 2017, made in Sakthivel -vs- The State in W.P. (MD)

No.2344 of 2017]. As stated above, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that

must be a minimum of 220 meters between the outer edge of Highways

and the liquor shop. 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.

14. Further, as regards the ninth respondent's recreational club, this

Court deems fit to rely on G.O. (Ms.) No.32, Home, Prohibition and

Excise (VI) Department dated May 21, 2018, whereof Paragraph No.19

reads thus:

"19.The Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise

has further stated that, no licenses for sale of

liquor are granted in the State of Tamil Nadu for

standalone restaurants. Licenses are granted to

clubs (FL2) for supply of liquor to members. FL3

is a license for possession of liquor by the Star

Page No.16 of 21

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

2026:MHC:3660W. P. ( M D ) N o . 1 9 3 6 8 o f 2 0 2 6

Hotels for supply to persons for consumption

within the licensed room of the Hotel or for

removal to their private rooms in the same hotel in

which they stay, for consumption there, the hotel

has to have a minimum of 20 rooms and

essentially cater to the requirements of persons

staying in these rooms. FL3A and FL3AA are

licenses granted to hotels of Tamil Nadu Tourism

Development Corporation and franchises of Tamil

Nadu Tourism Development Corporation

respectively, where there is a condition that liquor

should be supplied only to persons staying in the

hotels concerned. FL4, FL4A and FL5 are licenses

granted for supply of liquor to Military Units /

Military personnel / Ex-servicemen / Officers of

Seamen’s Merchant Navy. FL6 is a licence

granted for issue of liquor for Scientific Industrial

or such like purposes. FL7 is a license for sale of

wine, grape juice or liquor for sacramental

purpose. FL8, FL9 and FL10 are licenses which

given for the possession and sale of liquor within

an Airport. Hence, for these category of licenses,

the Government may issue instructions to the

licensing authority to consider the applications

from establishments for new / renewal of licenses

on a case by case basis as per the Tamil Nadu

Liquor (License and Permit) Rules, 1981, if the

Page No.17 of 21

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

2026:MHC:3660W. P. ( M D ) N o . 1 9 3 6 8 o f 2 0 2 6

applications are located within the municipal area

or an area mentioned in Para 15 above. In the

case of applications from establishments who are

not located in a municipal area or an area

mentioned in Para 15 above, the distance criteria

on/from the Highways, laid down by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in its orders dated 15.12.2016 and

31.03.2017 needs to be followed."

[Emphasis supplied by this Court]

14.1. Hence, it is clear that though the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its

afore-cited Judgment uses the term 'liquor shop', the guideline laid down

thereunder is applicable to the ninth respondent's recreational club

seeking FL-2 license.

15. Hence, this Court by exercising its power under Article 226 of

the Constitution of India, is inclined to order the Respondent Nos.2, 5 to

7 to close TASMAC Shop No.10215 forthwith and the Respondent Nos.1

to 4 and 6 to 8 restrain from in any manner granting FL-2 license to ninth

respondent's proposed recreational club in Survey No.311. It is made

clear that the official respondents are at liberty to relocate TASMAC

Shop No.10215 to any other location they deem fit, in accordance with

the law and the binding judicial decisions. Similarly, they are also at

Page No.18 of 21

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

2026:MHC:3660W. P. ( M D ) N o . 1 9 3 6 8 o f 2 0 2 6

liberty to consider on merits the ninth respondent's fresh application for

FL-2 license, if any, provided the proposed location thereunder is in tune

with the law and the binding judicial decisions. To the above extent, this

writ petition is allowed. In view of the facts and circumstances of this

case, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Writ

Miscellaneous Petition in W.M.P. (MD) No.14323 of 2026 is ordered and

that in W.M.P. (MD) No.14327 of 2026 is closed.

[C.V.K, J.] [R.S.V, J.]

08.09.2026

Index : Yes

Speaking Order : Yes

Neutral Citation : Yes

gvn

Page No.19 of 21

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

2026:MHC:3660W. P. ( M D ) N o . 1 9 3 6 8 o f 2 0 2 6

To:

1. The Commissioner,

Prohibition and Excise Department,

Elilazham, Chepauk,

Chennai-600 005.

2. The District Collector,

Office of the District Collector,

Trichy District.

3. The Commissioner of Police,

Office of the Commissioner of Police,

Pudukottai Road,

Trichy District.

4. The Assistant Commissioner of Police,

The Office of the Assistant Commissioner of Police,

Srirangam Sub Division, Trichy City.

5. The District Manager,

Office of the District Manager,

TASMAC, SIPCOT Building,

Thuvvakudi, Trichy District.

6. The Assistant Commissioner,

Prohibition and Excise Department,

District Collector Office,

Trichy District.

7. The Divisional Excise Officer,

Divisional Excise Office,

West Taluk Office,

Trichy District.

8. The Inspector of Police,

Srirangam Police Station,

Srirangam, Trichy District.

Page No.20 of 21

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

2026:MHC:3660W. P. ( M D ) N o . 1 9 3 6 8 o f 2 0 2 6

C.V. KARTHIKEYAN, J.

AND

R.SAKTHIVEL, J.

gvn

ORDER MADE IN

WP. (MD) No.19368 of 2026

08 / 09 / 2026

Page No.21 of 21

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis