Case Note & Summary
The writ petition was filed by a resident of Dindigul under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to quash the order dated 28.01.2026 passed by the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Chennai, granting FL-2 licence to the third respondent club, Honeybee Recreation Club, at Pallapatti Village, Dindigul, and for a direction to consider the petitioner's representation dated 22.01.2026. The petitioner contended that the club was located close to his residence and near several sensitive establishments, including hospitals, temples, a vegetable market, BSNL quarters, and the Dindigul Institute of Co-operative Management, and was also just 100 metres from the National Highway. The FL-2 licence permitted the club to sell liquor to its members within its premises. The first respondent, District Collector, filed a counter affidavit arguing that the restrictions relating to proximity to places of worship or educational institutions applied only to TASMAC shops, not to FL-2 licence holders. The learned Senior Counsel for the State submitted that the government had taken a conscious decision to close 717 TASMAC shops near such sensitive locations despite revenue losses and that the licence issued to the club was solely for sale to members within its confinement. No final orders were recorded in the available portion of the judgment.
Issue of Consideration
Whether FL-2 licence granted to Honeybee Recreation Club near hospitals, temples, educational institutions and national highway is valid, and whether proximity restrictions applicable to TASMAC shops extend to FL-2 licence holders
Law Points
- Writ of certiorarified mandamus under Article 226 of Constitution of India
- distinction between proximity restrictions for TASMAC shops and FL-2 licence holders
Case Details
2026 LawText (MAD) (07) 88
C.V. Karthikeyan, R. Sakthivel
Mr.J.Imran Khan for petitioner, Mr.B.Saravanan, Senior Counsel for Mr.M.P.Senthil for respondents 1 and 2, Mr.T.Bashyam for respondent 3
1. The District Collector, Dindigul District; 2. The Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Chennai; 3. Honeybee Recreation Club, represented by its Secretary, P. Muthuvairavan
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the grant of FL-2 licence to a recreation club.
Remedy Sought
To quash the order dated 28.01.2026 granting FL-2 licence to the third respondent and to direct consideration of the petitioner's representation dated 22.01.2026.
Filing Reason
The petitioner, a resident near the club, contended that the FL-2 licence should not have been granted because the club is located near hospitals, temples, a vegetable market, BSNL quarters, an educational institute, and within 100 metres of a National Highway.
Issues
Whether the FL-2 licence granted to the third respondent club near hospitals, temples, educational institutions, and a national highway is valid under relevant liquor laws.
Whether the proximity restrictions imposed on TASMAC shops apply to FL-2 licence holders.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner contended that the FL-2 licence should not have been granted due to proximity to sensitive establishments like hospitals, temples, educational institutions, and a national highway.
First respondent stated that restrictions relating to proximity to places of worship or educational institutions apply only to TASMAC shops.
Senior Counsel for the State argued that the government closed 717 TASMAC shops near such sensitive locations despite revenue loss, and the FL-2 licence granted to the club was for sale of liquor to its members only within its premises.
Judgment Excerpts
The writ petition has been filed in the nature of Certiorarified Mandamus, seeking a direction to call for the records relating to the proceedings in R.Dis. No.P and E.2(1)/2954/2023 dated 28.01.2026 of the 2nd respondent and quash the same.
It is the contention of the petitioner that quite close to the 3rd respondent, there are hospitals, temples, vegetable market and there is also a BSNL quarters.
The 1st respondent contended that the restrictions relating to the places of worship or educational institutions being close to a shop vending liquor would apply to TASMAC shops.
The State had taken a conscious decision to ensure that no TASMAC shop functions close to educational institutions and places of worship and had taken the extraordinary step of closing down 717 TASMAC shops.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The first respondent filed a counter affidavit. The court heard arguments from the petitioner and the respondents, but no final order was recorded in the available portion of the judgment.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Article 226
