TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court refuses to stop liquor shop in Madukkarai Village, citing lack of legal grounds. Limits of PIL emphasized.</h1> <h3>R. Senthil Kumar Versus Union Territory</h3> R. Senthil Kumar Versus Union Territory - TMI Issues:Restraining the setting up of a liquor shop at Madukkarai Village in Puducherry.Analysis:The writ petition sought to prevent the respondents from establishing a liquor shop in Madukkarai Village, Puducherry, citing public interest and the need to safeguard the peace and security of the general public, especially teenage girls and students. It was highlighted that there were already eight liquor shops in the area, raising concerns about the impact of adding a ninth shop on the local community. The petitioner's counsel referenced Condition (9) of the Pondicherry Excise Rules, emphasizing the need for specific facilities in liquor shops. The court acknowledged the concept of Public Interest Litigation (PIL), which allows courts to address matters affecting the public at large, even without a traditional 'locus standi.' However, the court clarified that PIL does not authorize judicial overreach into executive functions. The judgment emphasized that court intervention is limited to cases involving patent illegality or violations of rights, and cannot interfere in the absence of statutory breaches or binding precedents. Consequently, the court declined to entertain the writ petition, stating that without contravention of rules or precedents, they could not prevent the establishment of the liquor shop, and no costs were awarded.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
