ORDER 1. The present Writ Petition is filed, as a “Public Interest Litigation”, for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondents from opening TASMAC Shop at Vadamalapuram Village, Sivakasi Taluk, Virudhunagar District. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he is a permanent resident of Vadamalapuram Village, Sivakasi Taluk, Virudhunagar District and he represents the 4th Ward, Vadamalapuram Panchayat. In the said village, there is no TASMAC Shop at any point of time and on noticing that there is a proposal to locate TASMAC Shop, the local panchayat passed a unanimous resolution, thereby resolving that the District Collector should not grant permission for opening any Liquor Shop in the said village. The said resolution further states that there is a High School in the said village and the girls surrounding six villages are studying in the said school and the villagers also launched a signature campaign. The objections raised by the village people were duly forwarded to the respondents herein. The second respondent received the said objections on 17.7.2013, as per the postal acknowledgment card. However, the second respondent, without considering the said objections, has submitted a proposal to the first respondent for opening a Liquor Shop at Door No. 1/176-1, Arjuna Nagar, Sukkirawarpatti Road, Vadamalapuram. In the said communication, it is stated that no objections have been received from the public. Thus, the objection raised by the said village panchayat, by passing unanimous resolution, which was communicated to the second respondent, was not at all considered. Therefore, the recommendation was submitted without considering the relevant facts, which is vitiated and only for the purpose of augmenting the income, the respondents are proposing to open a liquor shop in Vadamalapuram Village. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that in spite of objections from the villagers and the unanimous resolution of the panchayat dated 1.7.2013, for opening liquor shop, the second respondent has submitted proposal recommending to establish the liquor shop, which is in violation of Article 47 of the Constitution of India. 4. When the Writ Petition was posted for admission, Mr. M. Muniasamy, learned Standing counsel, was directed to take notice on behalf of the second respondent and get instructions. 4. When the Writ Petition was posted for admission, Mr. M. Muniasamy, learned Standing counsel, was directed to take notice on behalf of the second respondent and get instructions. Today, the learned Standing counsel produced the written instructions given by the second respondent dated 2.8.2013, wherein it is stated that on 19.6.2013, an inspection was conducted and a suitable place, viz., Door No. 1/176-1, Arjuna Nagar, Sukkirawarpatti Road, Vadamalapuram, was found out to establish a liquor shop and if such liquor shop is located in the said place, there will be lot of sale and it will fetch more income to the Government and the building owner, viz., P.Murugan, has also given an undertaking to give the said building for lease to locate the liquor shop. The learned Standing counsel, therefore, submitted that the recommendations made by the second respondent to the first respondent cannot be found fault with. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submitted that as the panchayat passed unanimous resolution on 1.7.2013 and the same was communicated to the second respondent, by Registered Post, the recommendation made by the second respondent on 24.7.2013 to the first respondent stating that there is no objection from the general public for locating Liquor Shop is contrary to the records. 6. We have considered the above rival submissions. 7. From the records, it is seen that the objections were submitted by the village people by Registered Post on 16.7.2013 and the said objections were received by the second respondent on 17.7.2013. The panchayat also passed a resolution on 1.7.2013, resolving that the District Collector should not grant permission for opening any Liquor Shop and the said resolution was also communicated to the second respondent. In such circumstances, the communication of the second respondent, recommending for opening of the liquor shop at Door No. 1/176-1, Arjuna Nagar, Sukkirawarpatti Road, Vadamalapuram, to the first respondent, cannot be treated as a valid recommendation, which is contrary to the records available. 8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in N. Kaushal v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 1457 : 1978 (3) SCC 558 , considered the right of State to regulate the sale of liquor and the power of the State to locate the liquor shop and also considered as to how the liquor trade is affecting the health of the public. In Paragraph No. 49, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held thus:- “...... In Paragraph No. 49, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held thus:- “...... The trade is instinct with injury to individual and community and has serious side-effects recognized everywhere in every age. Not to control alcohol business is to abdicate the right to rule for the good of the people. Not to canalise the age and sex of consumers and servers, the hours of sale and cash-and-carry basis the punctuation and pause in days to produce partially the ‘dry’ habit is to fail functionally as a Welfare State. The whole scheme of the statute proclaims its purpose of control in time and space and otherwise. Section 58 vests in Government the power for more serious restrictions and laying down of principles. Details and lesser constraints have been left to the rule-making power of the Financial Commissioner. The complex of provisions is purpose-oriented, considerably re-inforced by Article 47. ” 9. In the decision in N. Nagendra Rao & Co. v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1994 SC 2663 : 1994 (6) SCC 205 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held thus:- “...... No civilized system can permit an executive to play with the people of its country and claim that it is entitled to act in any manner as it is sovereign. Needs of the State, duty of its officials and right of the citizens are required to be reconciled so that the Rule of law in a Welfare State is not shaken......” 10. Article 47 of the Constitution of India mandates the State to improve the public health, as it is a primary duty and the State shall endeavour to bring about prohibition of the consumption except for medicinal purposes of intoxicating drinks and of drugs, which are injurious to health. 11. Article 21 of the Constitution of India gives protection of life and personal liberty. Right to live with human dignity and right to healthy environment etc are also declared as fundamental rights. The apprehension of the villagers is that if the liquor shop is located within the village, the rights of the school going students, women and children will be jeopardized and they may not be in a position to move freely during night hours, which is a guaranteed right to every citizen, including women and children, as guaranteed in Article 19(1)(d) of the Constitution of India. Freedom of movement is guaranteed not only in any part of India, but also within the village itself. If any obstruction is made by any person due to intoxicating, the same would amount to violation of fundamental right. In order to protect the said right, the villagers and the village panchayat passed the said resolution opposing the establishment of liquor shop. 12. At this juncture, it is worthwhile to quote an Article published in Hindu dated 12.1.2010, which published the views of Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer, on the topic of the State and the Evil of Drink, which reads thus:- “All great men were free from alcoholism; they range from Bemand Shaw to Mahatma Gandhi. From Vedanta to Islam and every faith which is committed to dignity, decency and sobriety has advocated this. If the elimination of poverty and bankruptcy will constitute patriotism, the highest priority to implementing this principle should be given to an absolute ban on alcoholism.” 13. It is also relevant to note, at this juncture, that Rule 10(5) of the Tamil Nadu Liquor Retail Vending (in Shops and Bars) Rules, 2003, mandates that every shop is bound to have a signboard in Tamil in front of the shop in Tamil with slogans in Bold Letters about the evils of drinking both in Tamil and English, viz. “Liquor – ruins country, family and life”. 14. The said Rule even though preaches about the evils of drinking and when the people of the said locality have unanimously decided to follow the said slogan in its letter and spirit, the authorities are bound to respect their sentiment and views, which the respondents have not given their due thought, which is also a relevant factor to consider the claim made by the petitioner in this Writ Petition by this Court. 15. From the above narrated facts as well as the constitutional provisions and the Judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, we are of the view that the views expressed by the village people and the unanimous resolution passed by the village panchayat seeking not to grant permission to open liquor shop within the village should be given due weightate by the respondents, whose sole intention, as per the written instruction given by the second respondent to the learned Standing counsel, is only to fetch more income to the Government by sale of liquor. When the people in the said locality are unanimously opposing establishment of liquor shop, the democratically elected Government must respect the wishes of the people, unlike establishment of Hospitals and Schools/Reading Room, the people have got a right to express their views regarding the establishment of liquor shops on their doorsteps, particularly, when they are living in the village without liquor shop for the past several decades. The same having not been considered by the respondents in proper perspective, this Court is bound to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 16. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. Petition allowed.