P. BALAKRISHNAN, Vs. THE STATE OF TAMILNADU, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PROHIBITION AND EXCISE DEPARTMENT, MADRAS,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Government Pleader takes notice. With the consent of both parties, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal.

(2.) The 2nd petitioner is a licence holder to run IMFL shop. Under the impugned proceedings, the 2nd petitioner has been directed to apply for a licence for running a Bar attached to his IMFL shop. The contention of the 2nd petitioner is that G.O.Ms.No.113, Prohibition and Excise Department, dated 23.4.2002, which permits the IMFL licence holders to run the Bar, gives an option to choose between whether to run or not to run the Bar. There is no compulsion that everyone of the IMFL licensees must open a Bar and obtain a licence therefore. When a discretion is given to the licensees, it is not open to the authorities to compel the IMFL licensees to obtain the Bar licence. It is therefore contended that the impugned proceedings is illegal.

(3.) The learned Government Pleader fairly conceded that G.O.Ms.No.113, dated 23.4.2002, was brought in only to avoid the illegal running of Bars by IMFL licensees and if the petitioner gives an undertaking that he will not run a Bar illegally, he need not obtain the licence.