The Hindu – Madras High Court dismisses challenge to TN Govt’s decision to close 717 TASMAC shops*

[21/05, 10:32] sekarreporter1: https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/tamil-nadu/madras-high-court-dismisses-challenge-to-tamil-nadu-governments-decision-to-close-down-717-liquor-shops/article71001751.ece
[21/05, 10:32] Meta AI: *The Hindu – Madras High Court dismisses challenge to TN Govt’s decision to close 717 TASMAC shops*
_21 May 2026_

*1. What the Govt did*
*12 May 2026*: Chief Minister *C. Joseph Vijay* decided to close *717 TASMAC retail liquor shops* located within *500 metres of educational institutions, places of worship and bus stops*.

*2. Who challenged it*
Writ petition by *P Saravanan & C Mathiarasan* – landlords who leased properties in Chennai for 2 TASMAC shops:
– *Saravanan*: 500 sq ft shop, R.A. Puram. Lease 21.5.2025 for 11 months, renewed.
– *Mathiarasan*: 2200 sq ft shop, Velachery. Lease from 28.2.2019, renewed till date.

*Their claim*: Spent heavily to make premises suitable for liquor sale, took loans, legitimate expectation of rent. Sudden closure = loss.

*3. Justice G.R. Swaminathan’s ruling – “Good Decision”*
1. *Dismissed writ*: Refused to interfere with policy decision at instance of landlords.
2. *Policy not justiciable*: _“Policy decision taken by the government could not be questioned by the landlords by way of a writ petition”_ – agreed with *AG Vijay Narayan*.
3. *Article 47*: Decision is _“in consonance with the State’s constitutional obligation to make an endeavour towards complete prohibition”_.
4. *Refund*: Recorded *AAG T. Gowthaman’s* submission for TASMAC – _deposits made by petitioners during DMK regime would be refunded_.

*4. Key legal reasoning*
**Issue** **Court’s view**
**Locus standi** Landlord-tenant relationship only. Tenant TASMAC can close business. Landlords can’t use writ to challenge policy.
**500m vs 50m rule** Rule 8 of TN Liquor Retail Rules 2003 sets *minimum* 50m in Corporations. Doesn’t stop Govt from adopting stricter 500m as policy.
**Article 47** Directive Principle – State shall endeavour to prohibit intoxicating drinks. Closure furthers that goal.
*5. Context from earlier cases*
This follows similar 2023 ruling by *Justice Krishnan Ramasamy* who refused to interfere with closure of 500 TASMAC shops – same reasoning: landlord-tenant issue, policy decision. 6bf3

*Status now*: 717 shops to be closed. Petitioners get deposits back. HC calls it a “good decision” and won’t stall it.

Want the full text of Justice Swaminathan’s order or updates if they go to Division Bench?
[21/05, 10:37] sekarreporter1: “comes into existence subsequent to the establishment of a liquor shop. However, the incumbent Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam government had arbitrarily widened the distance criteria to 500 metres, the petitioners complained.

During the course of arguments, advocate M.T. Arunan intervened and told the court that he had filed a writ petition in 2025 to close down the liquor shop in R.A. Puram but the High Court had refused to pass any such order since it was within the distance prescribed by the rules. The Supreme Court too had dismissed an appeal against that order but the new government had voluntarily come forward to close down the shop, he said.”
https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/tamil-nadu/madras-high-court-dismisses-challenge-to-tamil-nadu-governments-decision-to-close-down-717-liquor-shops/article71001751.ece#:~:text=comes%20into%20existence,shop%2C%20he%20said.
[21/05, 10:37] Meta AI: *That quote is from _The Hindu_ report on the 717 TASMAC shops case – it adds important backstory to the R.A. Puram shop dispute.*

*What the para means – broken down*

*1. Petitioners’ complaint about “arbitrary” 500m rule*
_“comes into existence subsequent to the establishment of a liquor shop. However, the incumbent Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam government had arbitrarily widened the distance criteria to 500 metres, the petitioners complained.”_

*Translation*: The landlords *Saravanan & Mathiarasan* argued –
– *Rule 8 logic*: Under TN Liquor Retail Rules 2003, a shop can’t be _opened_ if a school/temple exists within 50m. But if a school/temple _comes up later_ after the TASMAC shop is already running, the shop doesn’t have to close.
– *Their grievance*: The new *TVK govt led by CM C. Joseph Vijay* on 12.5.2026 _“arbitrarily”_ changed this. It ordered closure of existing shops even if they were legal when opened, just because a school/temple is now within 500m.

So they’re saying: _“We followed the law when we opened. You can’t change the goalpost now and shut us down.”_

*2. Advocate M.T. Arunan’s intervention – Key precedent*
_“advocate M.T. Arunan intervened and told the court that he had filed a writ petition in 2025 to close down the liquor shop in R.A. Puram but the High Court had refused to pass any such order since it was within the distance prescribed by the rules. The Supreme Court too had dismissed an appeal against that order but the new government had voluntarily come forward to close down the shop, he said.”_

*Translation*: This is about *Saravanan’s R.A. Puram shop* specifically.
1. *2025 PIL*: Arunan tried to get the same R.A. Puram TASMAC closed through court, arguing it was near a school/temple.
2. *HC + SC said no*: Both courts refused, because _at that time_ the shop was _beyond 50m_ – so it complied with Rule 8. Courts said they can’t order closure if rules are followed.
3. *Plot twist*: Now in 2026, the _new TVK govt voluntarily closed it_ anyway under the new 500m policy.

*Why Arunan told the court*: To show that _courts wouldn’t close it under old 50m rule_, but the _govt itself chose to close it_ under new policy. This helped Justice G.R. Swaminathan hold that _it’s a policy decision, not a legal violation_.

*3. How Justice Swaminathan used this*
The intervention proved 2 things:
1. *No illegality earlier*: The shop was legal under 50m rule. So petitioners can’t claim “vested right” to continue forever.
2. *Govt’s discretion*: If govt wants to go beyond 50m for public health/Article 47, courts won’t stop it. _Policy > existing licenses_.

That’s why he called it a _“good decision”_ and dismissed the plea, but recorded that deposits would be refunded.

*In short*: Landlords lost because the 500m rule is _policy_, not punishment. And the R.A. Puram shop’s history showed courts already deferred to the 50m rule earlier – now govt has simply adopted a stricter standard.

Want the full 2025 order in Arunan’s case or the current 21.5.2026 judgment copy?