The distance to be considered under Rule 18 of the Tamil Nadu Liquor (Retail & Vending) Rules, 1989, should be measured by the shortest pathway, lane, street, or road generally used by the members of the public.

1. In W.P.No.8377 of 1998, petitioner seeks issuance of writ of certiorari calling for the records comprised in proceedings No. Re.3634 of 1998 Gaw 8 on the file of respondent, dated 16. 98 and quash the same.

2. Petitioner is the auction purchaser of IMFL shop No.l 1, Coimbatore, and he wanted to locate his shop at Ward No. 18, bearing Door Nos.34-34A, Avarampalayam Main Road, Coimbatore. Respondent/officials inspected the shop and recommended for issuance of licence. On 25. 1998, respondent issued licence permitting the petitioner to carry on the business, whilese, on 6. 1998, respondent issued a communication, directing the petitioner to shift his business to an unobjectionable place. The reason alleged therein was that there were objections from the public and the M.L.A. also recommended to take action on such objection. A civil suit was also filed by a third person as O.S.No.910 of 1998, on the file of District Munsif s Court, to prevent the petitioner from conducting the business. But no interim order was passed by court. On receipt of the communication, petitioner submitted his explanation on 16. 1998 stating that his shop is situated well within the bounds of law and that the area is classified as commercial area and that the distance between the colonies and the educational institutions is beyond 50 metres, and as such the location of his shop is not hit by Rule 18 of the Tamil Nadu Liquor (Retail & Vending) Rules, 1989. On 16. 1998, without holding any further enquiry, petitioner was directed to close down the shop, and the same is challenged in this writ petition.

3. When the writ petition came for admission, the learned Additional Government Pleader took notice. The impugned Order was stayed till 30.6.1998, and the same was extended thereafter. But it is seen that when the stay order was not in force, respondent passed another order on 28. 1998, again directing the petitioner to close down the shop, and the same is challenged in the subsequent writ petition (W.P. 13056 of 1998).

.4. In between 16. 1998 and 28. 1998, some more developments had taken place, i.e., petitioner moved a representation before the Special Commissioner (Prohibition and Excise), to make an inspection. The Special Commissioner directed the Collector to get an Inspection Report from the District Revenue Officer and to pass suitable orders. Petitioner also received a communication from the Special Commissioner and Commissioner for Prohibition and Excise, dated 7. 1998, with an enclosure of the report of the D.R.O. dated 26. 1998 and also a plan, showing the location of the petitioners shop. But without taking into consideration the report and plan, the impugned Order was passed which is verbatim the same as the order dated 16. 1998. The grievance of the petitioner is that even though there were materials placed before the respondent explaining that he has established a shop in accordance with law, the same has not been considered, and that the same is as a result of non-application of mind. The latter order is only another copy of the earlier order dated 16. 1998 and, therefore, the same is also invalid.

5. I granted interim stay till 10. 1998, and the learned Additional Government Pleader also placed before me the entire file and argued the matter on instructions. No counter affidavit has been filed in this case.

6. The statement made by learned counsel for the petitioner that the order dated 16. 1998 and the order dated 28. 1998 are verbatim the same, cannot be disputed.

7. What has happened after 16. 1998 is not referred to in the impugned order except about the letter of the school dated 8. 1998. The objection of the school/college also could be considered only if the location of the shop is within the prohibitory distance, as provided under the Act. The reasons mentioned are that one A. Mohanachandran filed a suit as O.S.No.910 of 1998 stating that the location of the shop is a nuisance, and the members of the public hav