Judgment : 1. The great Tamil Poet, Thiruvalluvar has given to us ten couplets on the ill effects of drinking liquor. "TAMIL" which means that "intoxication is painful even in the presence of (one's) mother; what will it not be in that of the wise? As the poet has put it, on seeing a drunkard, even the mother will not tolerate and she will turn away her face out of pain as the drunkard may harm even her. The wise, more particularly, the students, children and women will not certainly tolerate a drunkard. When that be so, "how can they tolerate a liquor shop with bar attached near their house and study centre? This is preciously the dispute in this writ petition. 2. The petitioner is the owner of the property bearing Door No. 20 and 21 at 2nd street, Muthanandapuram in Kovilpatti Town, Tuticorin District. The Tamil Nadu Open University has approved a study centre for imparting education to the students and the said study centre is located in the above said building. The petitioner is the coordinator of the same. This study centre has been running from the year 2005. It was originally located in D.No.23a, subsequently, it was shifted to D.Nos.20 and 21 respectively. 3. According to the petitioner, approximately 5,000 students are studying various graduation and post graduation courses in the said centre. There are also houses around the said building. There is a hospital also by name Rhythm Hospital located in the same building. One Dr.A.Meenakshi Sundaram, MS., DLO., is also running his clinic. It is abetting the main street. There are lot of houses and business establishments on both sides of the said street. As a matter of fact, according to the petitioner, the said building is located in the busiest locality in the said place in Kovilpatti. While so, the respondents have opened a TASMAC shop for selling liquors and the said shop is located at 23 and 23a. According to the petitioner, it causes great nuisance to the students of the study centre, the patients of the hospital and also the living of the petitioner and his family members. 4. The petitioner as a matter of fact objected to the opening of the said TASMAC shop as it violates the relevant Government orders also. But, despite of the above, the shop has been opened and the same is running. 4. The petitioner as a matter of fact objected to the opening of the said TASMAC shop as it violates the relevant Government orders also. But, despite of the above, the shop has been opened and the same is running. In these circumstances, the petitioner has come up with this petition seeking a direction to the respondents to shift the shop forthwith to any other convenient place. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents and I have also perused the records carefully. 6. In order to substantiate the said contention of the petitioner, the learned counsel for the petitioner has produced lot of photographs showing the location of the TASMAC shop, Tamil Nadu open University Study centre, the hospital and houses and other establishments. The petitioner has also produced the list of the students, who are studying in the centre, which shows that there are 4,348 students as of now studying. The learned counsel would further submit that the establishment of the TASMAC shop causes a great nuisance and it violates the fundamental rights of the petitioner as well as the students, who are undergoing the studies. 7. The learned counsel for the respondents would stoutly oppose this petition. As according to him, the shop has been located strictly in accordance with the Tamil Nadu Liquor Retail Vending (in Shops and Bars) Rules 2003. According to the learned counsel, since the Tamil Nadu open University study Centre, of which, the petitioner claims to be the Coordinator is not a recognized institution, Rules contained in the above said rules are not applicable to the petitioner's study centre. The learned counsel would further submit that since the shop is located in a commercial area, the Rule is not applicable. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed, the learned counsel contended. 8. I have considered the above submissions. 9. Admittedly, by the side of the TASMAC shop, a bar is also attached. Therefore, it is crystal clear that not only liquors are sold in the shop, but also it is served to the public. It is well known that the people in inebriated condition, at times, misbehave with others. There are several such incidents, where under the influence of alcohol some elements cause nuisance to the road users bystanders and all other people, who are living in that area. It is well known that the people in inebriated condition, at times, misbehave with others. There are several such incidents, where under the influence of alcohol some elements cause nuisance to the road users bystanders and all other people, who are living in that area. That is the reason why the TASMAC shops are to be located at far off places, so that there is no inconvenience to the general public. Let the people, who like liquors, may go anywhere, be it a longer distance, to take liquor. Let them not cause any nuisance to the non drinkers in this country, where we are sure to follow the Gandhian principles. The nuisance, which is alleged by the petitioner is certainly proximate and it is violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The term "life" as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution has received very liberal interpretation at the hands of the Supreme Court, where the Hon'ble Supreme Court has gone to the extent of declaring that even right to sleep is a fundamental right falling within the purview of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the students, who study in the petitioner's centre, the petitioner himself and his family members have got fundamental right to have peaceful atmosphere to live, to study and to sleep. 10. But, certainly because the shop is located by the side of the petitioner's study centre, wherein liquor is not only sold but also served, this fundamental right would be materially infringed upon. Therefore, the shop cannot be allowed to run in the said place, because it is violative of the fundamental rights of the petitioner. No Governmental action can be approved by a Court of law, if it violates any of the fundamental rights of a citizen, because the right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is a basic human right. It may be true that the shop has been located in accordance with the Rules. Nevertheless, since it is violative of the fundamental rights of this petitioner, it needs judicial interference. 11. In such view of the matter, I am of the firm view that the shop at Door No.23 and 23a at Muthanandapuram 2nd street, Kovilpatti Thoothukudi District should be immediately closed and however, it will be open for the respondents to shift the shop elsewhere subject to the convenience and the Rules. 12. 11. In such view of the matter, I am of the firm view that the shop at Door No.23 and 23a at Muthanandapuram 2nd street, Kovilpatti Thoothukudi District should be immediately closed and however, it will be open for the respondents to shift the shop elsewhere subject to the convenience and the Rules. 12. In the result, the writ petition is allowed with the direction to the respondents to close the TASMAC Shop No.9905 at Door No.23 and 23a at Muthanandapuram 2nd street , Kovilpatti, Tuticorin District within a period of seven days from today, however with liberty to the respondents to shift the same and to relocate the same elsewhere, to a far of place, which will not cause any nuisance or inconvenience to the general public. No costs.