Petitions against TASMAC bar permit dismissed

Justice TS Sivagnanam on pointing out that the petitioners have not made out any case for interference with the impugned notification, said, “I find that there is no irrationality or arbitrariness in the conditions stipulated in the impugned tender notification. The basis for calculating the security deposit and the monthly licence fee has been shown to be done in an appropriate manner taking into consideration the turnover of a particular retail vending shop.” 

The petitioners had contended that the exclusive right to vend liquor vests with Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation (TASMAC) and the licence to be granted by TASMAC is to sell eatables and collect empty bottles in the bar. The normal concept of a hotel bar cannot be adopted in the present cases, and hence it is not the turnover of the retail vending shop, which is relevant, but the volume of sales, the petitioners submitted. 

However, Justice Sivagnanam while rejecting such an argument said, “The tender condition states that the licence fee will be fixed on a monthly basis depending upon the sales in the vending shop. Therefore, even on that aspect, the amount is not static and can either increase or decrease depending upon the sales. If the sales for next 3 months, shows an upward trend, then the licensee is required to proportionately increase the security deposit.”