‘Welfare State Should Prioritise Prohibition': Madras HC Orders Closure Of Liquor Shop Near School
Last Updated:
The petitioner alleged that the shop caused a public nuisance, particularly endangering schoolchildren who frequently use the road to reach nearby educational institutions
The Madurai bench of the Madras High Court (HC) recently directed the closure of a TASMAC liquor shop located at Trichy Road, Dindigul, emphasising that the State, as a welfare government, must strive toward prohibition and not profit at the cost of public health.
The order was passed by a division bench comprising Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice Dr AD Maria Clete in response to a writ petition filed by one K Kannan, who sought the closure of TASMAC shop No.3110.
The petitioner alleged that the shop caused a public nuisance, particularly endangering schoolchildren who frequently use the road to reach nearby educational institutions.
Raising concerns over its location, the petitioner pointed out that the shop stood in proximity to two schools, a church, and a government hospital.
Though the TASMAC authorities argued that the shop was compliant with the prescribed distance of 50 metres under the Tamil Nadu Liquor Retail Vending Rules, 2003, the court found this argument insufficient.
The bench noted that mere adherence to technical distance norms cannot override legitimate public health and safety concerns.
'The TASMAC shop would undoubtedly cause public nuisance to the road users, children attending the School and persons going to Church etc.," court noted.
The bench referred to Article 47 of the Constitution, which mandates the State to improve public health and endeavor to prohibit intoxicating drinks except for medicinal purposes.
'It is a constitutional philosophy and the Directive principles insist that a welfare Government should strive wholeheartedly to enforce prohibition, rather than establish more TASMAC shops which adversely affect public health," court emphasised.
It added, 'When the right to health is a fundamental right, the State must ensure that the prohibition is slowly implemented in a phased manner to reduce harm to the public health".
Accordingly, finding merit in the petitioner's concerns and concluding that no prejudice would be caused by shutting down the shop, the high court directed the respondents—including the TASMAC Managing Director and Dindigul District Collector—to close the shop within two weeks from the receipt of the order.
The matter is now listed for reporting compliance on June 18.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
2 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
Reimburse cost of surgery to retd employee: HC to centre
MUMBAI: The Bombay high court on Friday directed the central government to fully reimburse the medical expense of a pensioner who underwent heart transplant in a private hospital in 2019 as hospitals empanelled under Central Government Health Scheme (CGHS) could not provide him the required treatment. The court has granted four weeks to the central government to reimburse the full expenses. CGHS empanelled hospitals provide healthcare services to central government employees, pensioners and their dependents at affordable rates. The pensioner, Anirudh Prataprai Nansi, voluntarily stepped down from central government services in 2008. In 2009, Nansi was diagnosed with Cardiomyopathy which aggravated in 2019 when the functioning of his heart's left ventricle significantly deteriorated to 15%, restricting smooth blood flow. Doctors advised Nansi for immediate heart transplant but as CGHS-empanelled government hospitals did not have the necessary license, approvals and expertise,he sought treatment at the privately owned Sir H. N. Reliance Foundation Hospital. Prior to the surgery, he notified CGHS authorities regarding the estimated cost. After multiple follow ups, CGHS authorities responded to Nansi's reimbursement request in March 2021, stating that they could only provide an amount of ₹69,000 out of the total expense of ₹22 lakh, as per CGHS's Mumbai rate list. Nansi approached the Bombay high court in 2021. The court appointed committee heard the case in November 2021 and opined that the full expense could not be reimbursed as it did not match CGHS rates. The committee noted that since the heart transplantation was a planned surgery and not an emergency, the reimbursement should be done as per CGHS rules and guidelines. Nansi again approached the high court in 2022, citing violation of his fundamental right to life and pleading that the full expense be reimbursed to him as government hospitals lacked the required facilities. On Friday, the division bench of justices G S Kulkarni and Advait Sethna observed that Nansi cannot be deprived of full reimbursement when he had to undergo treatment at a private hospital as the surgery had to be done immediately. In such cases of necessary treatment, the central government is obliged to grant reimbursement on a case to case basis, the court said. 'Not granting full reimbursement is not only violative of the fundamental rights but strikes at the very root, purpose and essence of these basic human rights as guaranteed by the Constitution, i.e., Right to Life under Article 21. Any employee, merely because he has retired, ought not be differently treated when it comes to genuine and realistic health expenditure,' the bench said.
Time of India
4 hours ago
- Time of India
Bombay high court orders full reimbursement for central govt pensioner denied heart transplant expenses incurred at private hospital
Mumbai: In what it said was a peculiar case of a dispute arising over a reimbursement claim by a central govt employee for a "heart transplant" conducted at a private hospital, the Bombay high court on Friday held that the affected man, a pensioner, was entitled to decide on a private hospital for the procedure in the absence of timely availability of such facilities in all the empanelled hospitals under the govt health scheme for employees. The high court said he was entitled to full reimbursement of his "undisputed expenditure". It said that to make the man suffer for the refund was a glaring travesty of justice and violation of his fundamental rights. Anirudh Nansi, who took voluntary retirement in March 2008 as a central govt employee, is a Mumbai resident and petitioned the high court in 2022 over his December 2020 transplant. He was an assistant commissioner in the Central Excise and Customs, Pune. The high court held that the money is to be paid in four weeks to the former employee. It held that the rejection by the Centre was "not only violative of the fundamental rights but strikes at the very root, purpose, and essence of these basic human rights as guaranteed by the constitutional guarantee of right to life under Article 21". A division bench of Justice Girish Kulkarni and Jistice Advait Sethna, tn the judgement pronouncement, held that the central govt was under an obligatory position to grant reimbursement on a case-by-case basis, with no straitjacket formula to fix reimbursement rates. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Esta nueva alarma con cámara es casi regalada en Castelar (ver precio) Verisure Undo The judges said a heart transplant was "certainly serious and emergent", hence, the former employee's case deserved to be treated with humane sensitivity and not mechanically in a "narrow pedantic" view. Any employee, merely because he retired, ought not to be differently treated when it comes to genuine and realistic need, held the high court. A high-powered committee (HPC) denying the pensioner full reimbursement on the grounds that the central scheme permitted rates are required to be followed, "is not the correct and a legal stand of the (Centre)", the high court noted. It said it also disagreed with the HPC's reasoning to deny a full refund even under the Centre's relaxation of guidelines for special emergent cases, stating that "heart transplantation was a planned surgery and not an emergency". The high court said that under the Centre's relaxation rules, it failed to understand how a heart transplant is not considered "extraordinary", emergent and inevitable surgery, "as a heart transplant is required only when the heart is failing, the consequences of which are just to be imagined". Even if there were no relaxation guidelines, in deserving cases, the HPC should exercise its discretion to award full medical reimbursement, held the high court. Through senior advocate Prakash Shah and advocate Anil Balani, Nansi sought reimbursement, saying he was being denied it. He sought reimbursement of Rs 22 lakh with 9% yearly interest. His claim was denied in April 2022 by the Centre. The petitioner was suffering from cardiomyopathy since 2009. In Oct 2019, his condition deteriorated, and he was advised to have a transplant. He said a private empanelled super-specialty hospital in Mumbai at the time was not performing heart transplants, hence he got his done at another one in Mumbai on Dec 29, 2020. He cited his then "grave and critical nature… and the lack of any CGHS empanelled hospitals having necessary licence, approvals, and expertise… . " Before his surgery, he got an endorsement from the Centre noting that reimbursement at a non-empanelled hospital could only be given at CGHS rates and the difference would have to be borne by the petitioner. "This medical condition is certainly not a routine affair for the hospitals, much less for the central govt hospitals or those under the Central Government Health Scheme," observed the high court after hearing the Centre's lawyers Y R Sharma and Jain. The issue before the high court was whether, in his pressing situation, he could be denied full reimbursement of the medical expenses incurred by him for such major treatment merely because he opted for a private hospital. The question was also whether the rigours of the normal rule of medical reimbursement should make way for the case to be considered specially, the high court said, particularly as a heart transplant surgery is not a walk-in category of surgery. While in many cases reimbursements may not involve any dispute on the amount, it cannot mean that in very peculiar, serious, specialised cases of medical treatment, the reimbursement needs to be only as per the rates which are pre-determined, the high court observed, as it would then "be most unrealistic, unfair, and discriminatory as in the present situation". The high court added that even if it was a planned surgery, Nansi's claim for a full refund could not have been rejected, "or merely because the rates being notified, the petitioner ought not to be granted any reimbursement". The high court said: "It cannot be that the rules governing reimbursement are sacrosanct and nothing outside the rules in exceptional/special cases and especially deserving cases can be considered for reimbursement by the central govt. It would not require elaboration that in such matters, it is an accepted position that there is a free play in the joints and such category of cases are required to be considered on their merits. "Certainly, the heart transplant surgery is one of urgency and critical importance, and could not have been postponed. It is a special circumstance. It is imperative that such surgeries are expedited in the interest of human life without an embargo of an expenditure which is secondary to human life." Get the latest lifestyle updates on Times of India, along with Eid wishes , messages , and quotes !
Time of India
9 hours ago
- Time of India
HC grants conditional release of documents for PG medical students
Jaipur: Rajasthan High Court Friday provided relief to MBBS graduates pursuing post-graduate studies and directed SMS Medical College and other medical institutions to return their original documents in a case regarding post-PG senior residency internship. The court stipulated that petitioners must provide an undertaking to the state govt, agreeing to pay Rs 10 lakhs if they do not complete their senior residency. While hearing over two hundred petitions, including one by Dr Syed Shabaz and others, Justice Sameer Jain dismissed the state govt's review petition on grounds that the matter is already being heard by a division bench. "We have maintained that govt wants them to serve in govt hospital for 2 years after completing post-graduation," stated Archit Bohra, additional govt counsel. Petitioners explained that during PG course admission, applicant are required to sign a Rs 10 lakh bond, promising to serve the state govt for two years post-course, or pay the bond amount of Rs 10 lakh. Petitioners, however, challenged the govt's decision. TNN Get the latest lifestyle updates on Times of India, along with Eid wishes , messages , and quotes !
