S.Muralidharan Vs Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation (Tasmac)

Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation (TASMAC) Rep. by the Managing Director CMDA Tower II, IV Floor Gandhi Irwin Bridge Road Egmore, Chennai 600 008.

¶15

Home, Prohibition and Excise Department Rep. by Principal Secretary Secretariat, Fort St. George Chennai 600 009.

¶16

The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by the Chief Secretary Secretariat, Fort St. George Chennai 09.

¶17

Page 1 of 6

¶18

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶19

W.P.No.19502 of 2024

¶20

Serious Fraud Investigation Office Rep. by Director Corporate Bhawan, Ground Floor No.29, Rajaji Salai, Chennai 600 001.

¶21

National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission Rep. by the President Upbhokta Nyay Bhavan, F Block GPO Complex, INA, New Delhi 110 023.

¶22

Food Safety and Standards Authority of India Rep. by Regional Director 2^nd Floor, South Wing North Beach Road Port Trust, Rajaji Salai, Chennai 600 001.

¶23

Respondents

¶24

[R4 & R5 deleted vide this order]

¶25

Prayer : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ of Declaration declaring Act 33 of 1986 and Act 31 of 2003 of The Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937 as immoral, unconstitutional, against right to life and hence illegal.

¶26

For Petitioner

¶27

: Mr.S.Muralidharan Party-in-Person

¶28

For Respondents

¶29

: Mr.K.Sathish Kumar Standing Counsel for R1

¶30

Mr.J.Ravindran Additional Advocate General Assisted by Mr.Habeeb Rahman Government Advocate for R2 & R3

¶31

R4 & R5 - deleted

¶32

Page 2 of 6

¶33

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶34

W.P.No.19502 of 2024

¶35

ORDER

¶36

(Order of the Court was made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)

¶37

At the outset, petitioner seeks leave to delete respondents 4 and 5.

¶38

Leave granted. Registry to delete respondents 4 and 5.

¶39

In this petition, petitioner is seeking a declaration to declare Act 33 of 1986 and Act 31 of 2003 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937 as immoral, unconstitutional, against right to life and hence, illegal.

¶40

Both these Acts have been in force for the last 38 and 21 years respectively. Therefore, we are not inclined to entertain the petition. The writ petition is dismissed.

¶41

At the same time, in the order dated 29.07.2024, petitioner was permitted to submit a fresh representation to the Government because whether to lift a ban on toddy is a policy decision that the Government has to take.

¶42

___________ Page 3 of 6_

¶43

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶44

W.P.No.19502 of 2024

¶45

Petitioner states that he has not filed any representation. If petitioner files any representation within four weeks, representation be considered and if necessary, petitioner be called to make a presentation. Learned Additional Advocate General states that the representation be made to Principal Secretary, Prohibition and Excise Department.

¶46