Why should liquor shops open as early as 12 noon, asks HC

A division bench comprising justices N Kirubakaran and V Parthiban, before whom two criminal original petitions — one seeking bail for 25 people who participated in an agitation against the Tasmac shops and another for a direction to close a Tasmac shop located at an apartment in Tirumullaivoyal came up, said, “It is not known why the shops are opened even before lunch hours.” 

Nallathambi and 20 others, who were arrested in connection with the agitation seeking to close a Tasmac shop in Tirumullaivoyal on May 4 last year, had moved a criminal original petition seeking to quash the FIR filed against them. 

Taking note of the fact that illegal bars operate round-the-clock in the northern parts of the city and that four illegal liquor shops function within a radius of five kilometres between Gandhi Nagar and Edappalayam on the Red Hills-Tiruvallur Road, the bench had on April 4 directed the DGP, CoP and Tasmac authorities to conduct raids to close down all illegal shops and bars operating throughout the state by April 25 and file a report. 

However, when the matter came up again on April 27, a report was filed by the DGP stating that pursuant to the orders of the court, raids were conducted and as many as 100 FIRs were registered and 81 people involved in illegal sale of alcohol were arrested. 

The report also stated that 3,613 FIRs were registered and 3,255 people arrested during the raids conducted in the last six months by Tasmac officials and the police. 

But the bench had expressed dissatisfaction over the report and that only 100 FIRs were registered between April 18 and April 23, 2018 and held that the raids were not conducted properly. 

Stating that as per Article 6(2) of the Association, the Governor of Tamil Nadu is the ex-officio Patron, the Chief Secretary is the ex-officio President-in Chief, the Home Secretary is the Ex-officio President, the ADG Prisons is the Vice-president, the bench directed the Government to answer about the meetings convened by them and file proceedings of the meetings. 

The bench then posted the case for further hearing to June 11, 2018.