Disposed¶40

P.Prabakaran v. The Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise

Madras HC13 Feb 2026WP(MD)/4135/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court, Madurai Bench; W.P.(MD) No.4135 of 2026; FL-2 licence; members-only club bar; open advertisement and name board inviting general public; violation of licence conditions; direction to Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise to inspect premises and take action; interim restraint on running the Bar; Article 226 writ of certiorari; disposed at admission stage with consent of both sides; Bench: Dr.G.Jayachandran, J. and K.K.Ramakrishnan, J.; decided 13.02.2026.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with directions: first respondent to inspect the licensed premises for violation of FL-2 licence conditions and take necessary action against the fifth respondent if violation is found; fifth respondent restrained from running the Bar till then; no costs; connected miscellaneous petitions closed. ¶40

P.Prabakaran Vs The Commissioner of Prohibition and… — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶40

Issue for consideration

Whether the fifth respondent violated the FL-2 licence condition restricting supply of liquor to Club members only, by displaying an advertisement and name board openly inviting outsiders and the general public to its air-conditioned bar, and what action the licensing authority should take.

¶31

Court's answer

The Court found a gross violation of the FL-2 licence conditions by the fifth respondent in making an open invitation to the public, and questioned the inaction of the authorities concerned.

¶36

Ratio / Principle

The first respondent, who granted the FL-2 licence, was directed to inspect the premises by deputing his officers to ascertain whether there is any violation of the licence conditions, and if any violation is found, to take necessary action against the fifth respondent forthwith.

¶36

Key takeaways

Till such inspection and any resulting action, the fifth respondent is restrained from running the Bar in the Recreation Club.ratio¶36

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition under Article 226 seeking certiorari to quash the FL-2 licence dated 05.11.2025 (R.Dis.No.P & E.2(1)/5412/2022) granted by the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise to Honey Bee Recreation Club, Madurai. The petitioner alleged that, despite the licence condition that liquor shall be supplied only to members of the Club and not to outsiders or the general public, the Club displayed a prominent advertisement and a name board with an arrow mark inviting passers-by to its air-conditioned bar. The fifth respondent offered an undertaking to remove the name board and refrain from open invitations. The Court observed a gross violation of the licence conditions and questioned the authorities' inaction, and disposed of the petition by directing the first respondent to depute officers to inspect the premises and take necessary action against the fifth respondent forthwith if any violation is found; until such time the fifth respondent was restrained from running the Bar in the Recreation Club. Connected miscellaneous petitions closed; no costs.

¶1

W.P.(MD) No.4135 of 2026

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 13.02.2026

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN

¶6

W.P.(MD) No.4135 of 2026 and

¶7

W.M.P.(MD) Nos.3451 & 3452 of 2026

P.Prabakaran

... Petitioner

-vs-

1.The Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise

¶12

Chepauk, Chennai-600 005

¶13

2.The District Collector The Collectorate Madurai District

¶14

3.The Assistant Commissioner (Excise) Office of the Assistant Commissioner (Excise) Madurai District

¶15

4.The Inspector General of Registration Registration Department No.100, Santhome High Road

¶16

Chennai-600 028

¶17

_____________ Page 1 of 6_

¶18

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

¶19

W.P.(MD) No.4135 of 2026

¶20

5.Honey Bee Recreation Club rep.by its Secretary P.Muthu Vairan S/o.V.Palaniandi 1/182, Ring Road Viraganur, Madurai District ... Respondents

¶21

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of certiorari to call for the records of the impugned proceedings of the 1^st respondent in R.Dis.No.P & E.2(1)/5412/2022 dated 05.11.2025 and quash the same as illegal.

¶22

For Petitioner : Mr.J.Barathan for Mr.S.Bharathi For Respondents : Mr.P.Thilakkumar Government Pleader for R1 to R4 Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy, Senior Counsel for M/s.Roy and Roy Associates for R5

¶23

O R D E R [Order of the Court was made by DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.]

¶24

Mr.P.Thilakkumar, learned Government Pleader, takes notice for

¶25

the respondents 1 to 4 and Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy, learned Senior Counsel, representing M/s.Roy and Roy Associates, takes notice for the fifth respondent.

¶26

Page 2 of 6

¶27

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

¶28

W.P.(MD) No.4135 of 2026

¶29

2. With the consent of both sides, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

¶30

3. The FL-2 licence dated 05.11.2025, issued by the first respondent, in favour of the fifth respondent herein, is under challenge in this writ petition.

¶31

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the FL-2 licence was issued to the fifth respondent subject to the condition that liquor shall be supplied only to the members of the Club and not to outsiders or the general public. However, contrary to the said condition, a prominent advertisement has been displayed, visible to passersby, attracting and inviting them to use the air-conditioned bar facility. A copy of the name board, bearing an arrow mark indicating the direction to the air-conditioned bar, has been produced before this Court to substantiate the said contention. .

¶32

Page 3 of 6

¶33

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

¶34

W.P.(MD) No.4135 of 2026

¶35

5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the fifth respondent – Recreation Club submits that the fifth respondent – Recreation Club is ready to give an undertaking to remove the the name board and not to make any open invitation to the public to have the air-conditioned bar facility provided by the Recreation Club, which is exclusive for its members.

¶36

6. Though the above submission of the learned Senior Counsel appears to be very innocuous, we fail to understand as to what the authorities concerned were doing when there is a gross violation of the licence conditions by the fifth respondent by making an open invitation to the public. In such circumstances, the first respondent, who granted FL-2 licence to the fifth respondent, is directed to inspect the premises by deputing any of his officers and find out as to whether there is any violation of the licence conditions imposed by him while granting FL-2 licence and if any violation is found, necessary action shall be taken against the fifth respondent forthwith. Till such time, the fifth respondent is restrained from running the Bar in the Recreation Club.

¶37

_____________ Page 4 of 6_

¶38

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

¶39

W.P.(MD) No.4135 of 2026

¶40

7. With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. No

¶41

costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶42

[G.J., J.] [K.K.R.K., J.]