HC blocks TN bid to reclassify highway stretches as local roads

AN ATTEMPT by the Tamil Nadu government to reclassify parts of national and state highways as urban local roads suffered a setback in Madras High Court on Tuesday when a bench stayed the possible reopening of liquor shops on the road stretches for three months.

The Tamil Nadu government tried to argue that the move to reclassify the roads was aimed at changing their nomenclature, while the two petitioners against it contended that the government’s intention was to skirt the recent Supreme Court order barring liquor shops within 500 metres of highways, keeping in mind concerns of road safety. The apex court order became effective from April 1.

The bench of Chief Justice Indira Banerjee and Justice M Sundar gave the injunction after the government counsel failed to give an undertaking that the reclassification of roads would not lead to relocation or reopening of the closed Tasmac liquor shops and bars. Tasmac, or the Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation, is the state-run liquor wholesale and retail arm that enjoys a monopoly in the southern state.

On April 21, the Tamil Nadu municipal administration department asked all urban local bodies, including municipalities and corporations, to adopt resolutions to bring such stretches of highways passing through their territory under the control of these bodies.

One of the two PILS against the government’s move was filed by a member of the state’s opposition party DMK and the other by the Advocates Forum for Social Justice president K Balu.

On Tuesday, the High Court bench said, “There shall be an order of injunction restraining the state from setting up or opening or relocating any liquor shops abutting/along national highways or state highways running through the state for a period of three months.”

Advocate-general R Muthukumaraswamy, while arguing for the government, cited the example of Punjab where the administration wanted to change the nomenclature of roads and the Punjab and Haryana High Court had upheld this.

But senior lawyer P Wilson, representing the DMK’S R S Bharathi, said the state was trying to skirt the fallout of the Supreme Court verdict.

Balu’s counsel argued that the state was attempting to undermine the order of the apex court which had rejected review pleas by other state governments and refused to entertain requests for extension of time to implement the regulation.

The case has been posted for further hearing on July 10.