File photo: Madras High Court, Chennai
Photo: Yoga Balaji
Source: Wikimedia Commons
Licence: CC BY 3.0
Judgment Intelligence
Petition AllowedMohanraj & Anr. v. The Commissioner, Prohibition and Excise Department & Ors.
2026:MHC:3660
W.P.(MD) No. 19368 of 2026
- Court
- Madras High Court
- Date of Decision
- 8 September 2026
- Bench
- Justice C.V. Karthikeyan and Justice R. Sakthivel (Madurai Bench)
- Relevant Acts & Sections
- Tamil Nadu Liquor Retail Vending (In Shops and Bars) Rules, 1981 — Rule 8; Tamil Nadu Liquor (Licence and Permit) Rules, 1981; G.O. (Ms.) No. 32, Home, Prohibition and Excise (VI) Department, 21.05.2018; Constitution of India — Article 226
Final Outcome
Petition allowed: TASMAC Shop No. 10215 to be closed forthwith and no FL-2 licence to be granted to the club at Survey No. 311; liberty to relocate or apply afresh lawfully; no costs (para 15).
Source Madras High Court, decided 08.09.2026
Key holdings
- Distance from a highway under K. Balu is the aerial, shortest distance, not the road distance travelled (para 13).
- A liquor shop must be at least 220 metres from the outer edge of a highway even in small local bodies (para 12).
- The highway distance criteria apply to recreation clubs seeking FL-2 licences (para 14).
- TASMAC Shop No. 10215 was ordered closed, with liberty to relocate it lawfully (para 15).
- No FL-2 licence may be granted to the club at its proposed site, though a fresh application at a lawful location may be considered (para 15).
Judgment digest by NyayVidhan: a summary of the court's judgment, not its text. The judgment itself is the authoritative version.
Brief Facts
Two residents filed a public interest petition to close TASMAC Shop No. 10215 on the Trichy-Chennai National Highway and to stop an FL-2 licence for the ninth respondent's recreation club in the same survey number (paras 1-2). The State and TASMAC said the shop complied with Rule 8 of the 1981 Vending Rules, and the club said it was 1.5 km away by road (paras 4-7). On 23.07.2026 the Court called for the District Collector's report; the Tahsildar and surveyor found the shop 55.7 metres and the club 71 metres from the highway, with about 1.4 km to travel by vehicle (paras 10-11, 13).
Court's Findings
The Court noted the Supreme Court's ruling in State of Tamil Nadu v. K. Balu that no liquor shop should face or be directly accessible from a highway and that, even in local bodies of 20,000 people or less, it must be at least 220 metres from the outer edge of the highway (para 12). In measuring that distance, the road distance a vehicle or person must travel is insignificant; only the aerial, shortest distance counts, as held in R. Gopinath and followed in later decisions (para 13). At 55.7 and 71 metres, the shop and the club were not in line with K. Balu (para 13). Relying on G.O. (Ms.) No. 32 of 2018, the Court held that the highway distance criteria also apply to a recreation club seeking an FL-2 licence, though K. Balu speaks of liquor shops (para 14). It noted with approval the directions in Perumal v. Commissioner meant to check liquor shops operating as recreation clubs (para 9).
Legal Principle
For the Supreme Court's highway distance rule on liquor outlets, distance means the aerial or shortest distance from the highway, not the route a vehicle travels. The rule applies to a recreation club seeking an FL-2 licence as it does to a liquor shop (paras 13-14).
Precedents Relied Upon
- State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. v. K. Balu & Anr. (2017) 6 SCC 715
No liquor shop should face or be directly accessible from a highway; in local bodies of 20,000 people or less the prohibited distance is 220 metres from the outer edge of the highway.
- R. Gopinath v. The District Collector 2016-1-LW-663
In this context, distance means the shortest (aerial) distance.
- Perumal v. The Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise W.P.(MD) No. 8038 of 2019 batch, decided 18.08.2025 (MANU/TN/4144/2025)
Directions to check recreation clubs operating primarily as liquor shops; noted with approval.