Public interest litigation cannot replace executive action absent illegality, so restraint on a proposed liquor shop was not warranted.

Public interest litigation can relax locus standi where patent illegality affects the public, but it does not let the court assume executive functions. Judicial interference is warranted only on illegality, inaction, or infringement of legal, constitutional, or human rights. Because the proposed liquor shop had not yet been set up and was required to comply with Rule 113(2) of the Pondicherry Excise Rules, 1970, and because no breach of statutory rules or binding precedent was shown, there was no basis for restraint or interference.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Court should interfere in public interest to restrain the setting up or re-location of a liquor shop in the absence of any contravention of statutory rules or binding precedent.

Analysis: Public interest litigation permits relaxation of locus standi where patent illegality affects the public or a class of persons, but it does not authorise the Court to assume executive functions. Judicial intervention is justified only where there is illegality in action or inaction, or where a legal, constitutional, or human right is infringed. The proposed liquor shop was yet to be set up and had to comply with the applicable conditions under Rule 113(2) of the Pondicherry Excise Rules, 1970. In the absence of a demonstrated breach of statutory rules or any binding judicial precedent, there was no basis for interference.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not entertained and no interference was warranted with the setting up of the liquor shop.

---