<p>A day after the Madras High Court directed the closure of liquor shops in Tamil Nadu, the state-owned Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation (TASMAC) on Saturday approached the Supreme Court challenging the order. </p>.<p>In its petition, the state government contended the net effect of the order would be complete and indefinite standstill of liquor sale, resulting into grave losses to the state's revenue and commercial activity since all liquor retail was owned and operated by the TASMAC.</p>.<p>The HC had on May 8 directed for only online sale and home delivery of liquor due to overcrowding seen at vends following the Union government's Ministry of Home Affairs' May 1 guidelines allowing sale of spirits subject to restrictions including social distancing. </p>.<p>Maintaining that the interim order was "factually untenable and legally unsustainable", the state government said the sale of liquor was a policy matter, falling within its domain. </p>.<p>The petition drafted by Additional Advocate General Balaji Srinivasan further said the HC bypassed and misinterpreted the top court's order of May 8, 2020 by which a three-bench had declined to direct states to close down liquor stores pending the lockdown and left it to each state’s discretion to consider non-direct sale including online sale and home delivery of liquor.</p>.<p>Asking the apex court to set aside the HC's order, the petitioner said since the Tamil Nadu Liquor (License and Permit) Rules, 1981 do not provide for online sales, the state has to amend the provision of the Tamil Nadu Liquor Retail Vending (In shops and Bars) Rules, 2003. </p>.<p>"It is submitted that the High Court cannot compel the state to amend the provisions of the said Rules," it said.</p>.<p>It termed the HC's order as disproportionate, saying the state had made elaborate bandobast arrangements for crowd control.</p>.<p>"Wherever there was overcrowding, prompt action was taken by the police and the TASMAC has also stopped sales at 12 (Twelve) such shops. The overcrowding that takes place at certain shops is something that all states have faced when re-opening their liquor stores after 41 days of lockdown," it said.</p>.<p>The state government also pointed out the HC passed the order, ignoring that the fact e-payment and home delivery called for immense logistical coordination, supply chain management, and manpower, which made it all the more difficult in the present Covid-18 situation.</p>.<p>"The extent of judicial overreach in the present case will have the effect of stultifying a major commercial activity," it said.</p>.<p>It also pointed out there was no other state, where liquor was being sold exclusively through online means, with the exception of perhaps Maharashtra where the Covid-19 figures are three-four times that of Tamil Nadu. </p>
<p>A day after the Madras High Court directed the closure of liquor shops in Tamil Nadu, the state-owned Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation (TASMAC) on Saturday approached the Supreme Court challenging the order. </p>.<p>In its petition, the state government contended the net effect of the order would be complete and indefinite standstill of liquor sale, resulting into grave losses to the state's revenue and commercial activity since all liquor retail was owned and operated by the TASMAC.</p>.<p>The HC had on May 8 directed for only online sale and home delivery of liquor due to overcrowding seen at vends following the Union government's Ministry of Home Affairs' May 1 guidelines allowing sale of spirits subject to restrictions including social distancing. </p>.<p>Maintaining that the interim order was "factually untenable and legally unsustainable", the state government said the sale of liquor was a policy matter, falling within its domain. </p>.<p>The petition drafted by Additional Advocate General Balaji Srinivasan further said the HC bypassed and misinterpreted the top court's order of May 8, 2020 by which a three-bench had declined to direct states to close down liquor stores pending the lockdown and left it to each state’s discretion to consider non-direct sale including online sale and home delivery of liquor.</p>.<p>Asking the apex court to set aside the HC's order, the petitioner said since the Tamil Nadu Liquor (License and Permit) Rules, 1981 do not provide for online sales, the state has to amend the provision of the Tamil Nadu Liquor Retail Vending (In shops and Bars) Rules, 2003. </p>.<p>"It is submitted that the High Court cannot compel the state to amend the provisions of the said Rules," it said.</p>.<p>It termed the HC's order as disproportionate, saying the state had made elaborate bandobast arrangements for crowd control.</p>.<p>"Wherever there was overcrowding, prompt action was taken by the police and the TASMAC has also stopped sales at 12 (Twelve) such shops. The overcrowding that takes place at certain shops is something that all states have faced when re-opening their liquor stores after 41 days of lockdown," it said.</p>.<p>The state government also pointed out the HC passed the order, ignoring that the fact e-payment and home delivery called for immense logistical coordination, supply chain management, and manpower, which made it all the more difficult in the present Covid-18 situation.</p>.<p>"The extent of judicial overreach in the present case will have the effect of stultifying a major commercial activity," it said.</p>.<p>It also pointed out there was no other state, where liquor was being sold exclusively through online means, with the exception of perhaps Maharashtra where the Covid-19 figures are three-four times that of Tamil Nadu. </p>
