Follow:
- Next story Rajiv Gandhi assassination: SC wants to know T.N.’s position on convict’s mercy plea:
- Previous story Hon’ble Full Bench, consisting of Their Lordships, Hon’ble The Chief Justice, Hon’ble Mr. Justice C.V. Karthikeyan and Hon’ble Mr. Justice P.D. Audikesavalu. On behalf of the respondents, District Collector and the Government, the State Government Pleader Thiru V. Jayaprakashnarayanan appeared. The State Government Pleader submitted that as per Rule 8 of Tamil Nadu Liquor Vending Rules, no liquor shop will be permitted within the distance of 100 meters from the Religious Places and Educational Institutions. The said Rule is strictly followed by the authorities while locating the TASMAC shop for retail vending. Apart from that the TASMAC also issued circular in the year, wherein a direction was issued to the authorities, if there is any objections received, either from the Villagers or Grama Saba the same should be taken into consideration and the District Collectors were directed to drop such proposal. Further, the officers should avoid selecting places for location of shops in thickly populated areas. 41 such proposals were dropped; further the Government also already closed more than 3000 liquor shops. Therefore, the liquor vending rules and circulars will be taken care of the objections raised by the Village Panchayat and public at large before locating the liquor shops by TASMAC.
Recent Posts
- MCQ question 1.We the people” book was written by ________ a. N.P.Palkhiwala b.Plato c. Maxwell d. None of the above
- 5 lakhs fine MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE Contempt Petition No.556 of 2024 and Sub Appl Nos.174, 175 of 2024 and 72 of 2025 Elephant G. Rajendran Advocate, Plot No.4, Door No.10/301, Anjaneyar Koil Street, Vengaivasal, Chennai 600 126. … Petitioner Versus Mr.Shiv Das Meena, IAS., The Chief Secrtary, Government of Tamil Nadu, Secretariat, Chennai 9. Mr.P.Amudha, I.A.S., The Home Secretary,
- Justices N Mala and G Arul Murugan issued the order, citing concerns over the large-scale violence that had erupted during a similar event organised by the party in
- Justices MS Ramesh and N Senthilkumar dismissed the convict’s appeal against the Mahila Court’s 2019 judgment, noting that
- Centre told the Division Bench of Justices J. Nisha Banu and S. Srimathy that a separate scientific method, prescribed by an expert body, was being followed.The court observed that upon perusal of the materials available on record, it was seen that the petition was premature. There was no data before the court to compare and determine the correctness of the rankings. The court was not inclined to entertain the petition, it observed, adding that if the petitioner was aggrieved after the publication of the list, he might challenge it with the evidence.
More
Recent Posts
- MCQ question 1.We the people” book was written by ________ a. N.P.Palkhiwala b.Plato c. Maxwell d. None of the above
- 5 lakhs fine MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE Contempt Petition No.556 of 2024 and Sub Appl Nos.174, 175 of 2024 and 72 of 2025 Elephant G. Rajendran Advocate, Plot No.4, Door No.10/301, Anjaneyar Koil Street, Vengaivasal, Chennai 600 126. … Petitioner Versus Mr.Shiv Das Meena, IAS., The Chief Secrtary, Government of Tamil Nadu, Secretariat, Chennai 9. Mr.P.Amudha, I.A.S., The Home Secretary,
- Justices N Mala and G Arul Murugan issued the order, citing concerns over the large-scale violence that had erupted during a similar event organised by the party in
- Justices MS Ramesh and N Senthilkumar dismissed the convict’s appeal against the Mahila Court’s 2019 judgment, noting that
- Centre told the Division Bench of Justices J. Nisha Banu and S. Srimathy that a separate scientific method, prescribed by an expert body, was being followed.The court observed that upon perusal of the materials available on record, it was seen that the petition was premature. There was no data before the court to compare and determine the correctness of the rankings. The court was not inclined to entertain the petition, it observed, adding that if the petitioner was aggrieved after the publication of the list, he might challenge it with the evidence.
