HC restrains TN from opening, relocating liquor shops

Image
Press Trust of India Chennai
Last Updated : Apr 25 2017 | 5:32 PM IST
The Madras High Court today granted an interim injunction restraining the Tamil Nadu government from opening or relocating state run TASMAC liquor shops along national or state highways.
The first bench, comprising Chief Justice Indira Banerjee and Justice M Sundar, said the order would be in force for three months or until further orders.
It granted the interim injunction on petitions by DMK leader R S Bharati and Advocates Forum for Social Justice. The PILs were filed after an April 21, 2017 circular of Commissioner of Municipal Administration requested all the Municipal Corporations and Municipalities to pass resolutions to take over roads of the state and national highways within their limits and to submit a report on April 25.
The petitioners contended that the circular was intended to bypass the Supreme Court directive on location of liquor shops and said that it was "a colourable exercise of power".
Advocate General R Muthukumaraswamy cited the Punjab example, saying after the administration wanted to change the nomenclature of roads, Haryana High Court had upheld the decision and the Supreme Court was yet to pass orders on the matter.
The bench, after hearing the AG, said it was constrained to pass the order as he could not give an undertaking that efforts to reclassify highways would not lead to reopening of closed TASMAC outlets and bars.
It then posted the matter toJuly 10.
When the matter came up, Bharati's counsel said the state government was trying to displace the effect of the apex court verdict, when even the legislature had no power to do so.
Pointing out that local bodies do not have elected councils since October 2016, the counsel said municipal corporations, as per Article 243 of the Constitution, are self-governments and so cannot adopt resolutions.
Such decisions cannot be adopted by the executive or those appointed as special officers, he said.
Any act nullifying the orders of the Supreme Court would run against Article 144 of the Constitution, he said.
The advocates forum submitted that the state government was attempting to undermine the Supreme Court order.

Disclaimer: No Business Standard Journalist was involved in creation of this content

*Subscribe to Business Standard digital and get complimentary access to The New York Times

Smart Quarterly

₹900

3 Months

₹300/Month

SAVE 25%

Smart Essential

₹2,700

1 Year

₹225/Month

SAVE 46%
*Complimentary New York Times access for the 2nd year will be given after 12 months

Super Saver

₹3,900

2 Years

₹162/Month

Subscribe

Renews automatically, cancel anytime

Here’s what’s included in our digital subscription plans

Exclusive premium stories online

  • Over 30 premium stories daily, handpicked by our editors

Complimentary Access to The New York Times

  • News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter & The Athletic

Business Standard Epaper

  • Digital replica of our daily newspaper — with options to read, save, and share

Curated Newsletters

  • Insights on markets, finance, politics, tech, and more delivered to your inbox

Market Analysis & Investment Insights

  • In-depth market analysis & insights with access to The Smart Investor

Archives

  • Repository of articles and publications dating back to 1997

Ad-free Reading

  • Uninterrupted reading experience with no advertisements

Seamless Access Across All Devices

  • Access Business Standard across devices — mobile, tablet, or PC, via web or app

More From This Section

First Published: Apr 25 2017 | 5:32 PM IST

Next Story