Special officers charged with facilitating illegal liquor shops

Even as the Madras High Court is seized with the issue of opening of liquor shops on highways that pass through municipal areas, a Chennai-based organisation moved an impleading petition alleging that many shops have been reopened on the state and national highways through illegal resolutions adopted by special officers, who have been in charge in the absence of an elected local body councils.

A Narayanan, the director of the NGO, Change India, contended that when the very appointment of special officers was under challenge for being an assault on the Constitution, there was no question of such illegal special officers substituting the right of elected municipal and corporation councils and adopting the illegal resolution. 

Moreover, because of the clear mandate of the Supreme Court, there was not an iota of doubt that the municipal commissioner has no locus standi to issue the purported circular to municipal corporations and municipalities to adopt resolutions for taking over the roads of the state and national highways within the limit of municipal corporation and municipalities in Tamil Nadu, he said. 

He also pointed out that the adjudication by the High Court on the status affidavit filed by government regarding the closure of illegal TASMAC outlets was still pending. Narayana added, 

“Instead of 900 shops initially identified by the survey officers, the government chose to close only 325 shops, contrary to the observation of the High Court. Thus, almost 575 shops are still running, adjacent to educational institutions and places of worship.” 

“If this is the depressing situation in the state, the illegality of denotifying highways within the limit of local bodies and takeover of such roads by local bodies through illegal resolutions and establishing liquor outlet show that the government has no respect for constitutional norms, Supreme Court’s direction and even society’s welfare,” the petitioner said. 

During the last hearing on Monday, the state had sought an early hearing of the case citing considerable revenue loss owing to an undertaking tendered last year to refrain from opening shops till the case was disposed of. While Advocate General Vijay Narayan had cited the clarification offered by the Supreme Court on lifting the ban on highways within the municipal and corporation limits, the bench was unconvinced, and stated that the issue was ambiguous and ought to be examined in detail.

A letter purportedly written by a Class 12 girl student from a village in The Nilgiris district, describing the difficulties she faced in preparing for examinations due to loud speakers kept at the temples in the neighbourhood, moved the senior judges of the Madras High Court to take up the matter.

However, as the petitioner, identified as Divya in the letter, was not present at the address, the first bench dropped the proceedings, but issued a direction to the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board (TNPCB) and the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR&CE) department, the custodian of temples in the state, to check noise pollution. On January 5, the High Court registry had received the letter which was written on December 26, 2017. The writer, identifying herself as Divya, a Class 12 student, said the Vinayagar temples located in and around Chalivayal, Choomali, Chembola and Bithekal near Gudalur in The Nilgiris district played songs very loudly every morning from 5.30 am to 9.00 am and evening 5.30 pm to 8.30 pm. Songs from these temples were audible all across a 100m radius area, resulting in citizens being disturbed and distressed over it, according to the letter. 

Taking suo motu cognisance of the issue, the first bench comprising Chief Justice Indira Banerjee and Justice Abdul Quddhose sought for a report. However, a counter affidavit filed by the Inspector of Police, Gudalur, Nilgiris District stated that Divya was not residing in the address and was untraceable. Meanwhile, the villagers and the temple authorities appeared before the RDO and signed an undertaking that they would not use any loud speakers. As the girl was not present in the address mentioned in the letter, the bench dropped further proceeding, with a direction to the pollution control board and HR&CE to check noise pollution. “We direct the TNPCB and HR&CE to make sure that no temples, or for the matter, no institution violates the noise pollution norms causing disturbance to people living in and around including students and elderly,” said the bench on recording the submissions of the counsels for HR&CE and the board.

In a twist to the ongoing controversy over the appointment of K Srinvasan as secretary, Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly (TNLA), the Madras High Court removed secretary to Governor as a respondent in the plea after pointing that notice cannot be issued to the Governor as he enjoys immunity under Article 361 of the Constitution. Similarly, the secretary to Speaker cited as a respondent has also been removed. Posting the matter to March 21, Justice T Raja directed Advocate General Vijay Narayan to address the question as to whom a direction can be issued in the event of the petition being allowed. Earlier, senior counsel P Wilson appearing for the petitioners submitted that when the Governor was the sole appointing authority of assembly secretary, notice can be issued to the secretary to Governor. The post of secretary was given to an ineligible person, so notice can be issued to the secretary to Governor, Wilson added.