HC slams TN govt for selling liquor

The Madras High Court Thursday expressed sadness over the Tamil Nadu government selling Indian Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL) in the state despite the fact that liquor spoiled many families and said it hoped prohibition would be clamped again.

Noting that Mahatma Gandhi fought for prohibition throughout his life, the court said there was no meaning in calling him the "Father of the Nation" without following his core principle of prohibition.

"It is sad that government is doing the unwarranted business only for the sake of raising revenue instead of going for alternative revenue like additional tax or new tax," Justice N Kirubakaran said.

Hearing a motor accident claim appeal, he said the liquor business of the government would endanger the people's lives and quoted statistics that 70 per cent of road accidents were caused by drunken driving.

Even after having such data, no effective step had been taken by the Centre or the state government, he said.

Mahatma Gandhi fought for prohibition throughout his life and there was no meaning in calling him the "Father of the Nation" without following his core principle of prohibition, the Judge said.

He expressed hope that prohibition would be brought back in the state as in 1970 when the dry law was lifted.

The state-owned TASMAC retails IMFL across Tamil Nadu through its outlets for the past several years.

The Judge was hearing an appeal filed by state transport corporation against the order of trial court which had awarded Rs.5.69 lakh to a kiln worker who died after his two-wheeler was knocked down by a transport corporation bus in Theni district on September 10, 2010.

The counsel for the corporation claimed that the accident occurred because the deceased Murugan was drunk.

Justice Kirubakaran said though in this case the deceased was not drunk, the accident occurred mostly because of drunken driving.

He enhanced the compensation to Rs 13 lakh, saying the trial court in the absence of any proof regarding the monthly income of the victim should have determined it at Rs 6,500 instead of Rs 3,500.

He directed the corporation to pay the compensation in four equal instalments at the interval of four weeks.