2010 Supreme(Mad) 3341
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR
S. Manivannan
Versus
The District Collector, Villupuram & Others
Writ Petition No. 7314 of 2010 & M.P. No. 1 of 2010
Decided On :Decided On : 09-08-2010
For the Petitioner:G. Ethirajulu, Advocate.
For the Respondents:R1 -R. Murali, Government Advocate, R2 & R3 -J. Ravindran, Advocate.
The right to a peaceful life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India takes precedence over revenue considerations in the location of liquor shops.
Headnote:
Liquor Shop - Location Objection - Tamil Nadu Liquor Retail Vending (in Shops and Bars) Rules, 2003 - Rule 8(1)
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner seeks to forbid the respondents from operating a liquor business near his residence, claiming that it causes public nuisance and violates his right to a peaceful life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The respondents argue that the liquor shop is not within the prohibited distance from temples and courts, and its location in a commercial area justifies its existence.
Finding of the Court:
The court finds that the location of the liquor shop causes hardship to the petitioner and the public, affecting their personal and property rights. The court also rejects the argument that the State's revenue justifies the shop's location, emphasizing the right to a peaceful life and the negative impact on nearby temples and courts.
Issues: (1) Whether the petitioner can seek the shifting of the liquor shop, even if it is not within the prohibited distance. (2) Whether the respondents can object to the shop's shifting based on revenue loss to the State.
Ratio Decidendi: The court holds that the petitioner has the right to seek the shop's shifting due to the public nuisance it causes, regardless of the distance rule. The court also rejects the revenue loss argument, emphasizing the right to a peaceful life and the negative impact on nearby temples and courts.
Final Decision: The writ petition is allowed, and the respondents are directed to shift the liquor shop to an unobjectionable place within four weeks or close it if no alternate place is found.
1. The prayer in the writ petition is to issue a writ of mandamus forbearing the respondents from carrying on liquor business through wine shop bearing Licence No.11425 situated at Singavaram Road Sundaravinayagar Koil Street junction, Ginjee, Villupuram District.
2. The petitioner, who is a permanent resident of house bearing Door No.60-C, Singavaram Road, Gingee, has filed this writ petition contending that the wine shop No.11425 is located at Singavaram Road and Sundaravinayagar Koil Street junction, Gingee, which is opposite to District Munsif Court and Additional District Court, Gingee, and within a distance of 50 meters of temples viz., Sundara Vinayagar Temple, Saibaba Mandir, Krishnan Temple and Parasakthy Vazhipattu Mandram. The petitioner further states that the said wine shop is open from 8.00 a.m. upto mid night on all days and by virtue of the location of the said liquor shop at the said junction, general public, worshippers, school going students and litigants as well as Advocates using the road are put to untold hardships, particularly ladies and girls passing through the said place, as the persons consuming liquor and using the bar attached to it are causing hindrance throughout the day until mid night. It is also averred in the affidavit that often gang fights are going on in the junction and therefore public at large are kept under constant peril and panic. The Police authorities are looking like spectators as the liquor shop is run by the Government Agency. The petitioner could not live in his house peacefully and he could not even open his door and windows.
3. According to the petitioner, several complaints were given to various authorities, however none of them were looked into. Petitioner submitted representations on 19.5.2009 and 22.6.2009 by registered post and in spite of receipt of the same no action was taken by the respondents, who are duty bound to take action under the statute. The location of the said wine shop in the said place affects the petitioners personal and property rights and he is unable to live in a peaceful manner, which is guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Hence the petitioner has filed this writ petition with the above said prayer.
4. The third respondent has filed counter affidavit opposing the writ petition stating that the said shop is not situated within the prohibited distance as contemplated under Rule 8 of the Tamil Nadu Liquor Retail Vending (in Shops and Bars) Rules, 2003, and the Temples are located beyond 82 meters and the District Munsif Court is located beyond 93 meters. Therefore there is no statutory prohibition to locate the liquor shop. The area is a commercial area and therefore the petitioner has no right to object the location of the liquor shop in the commercial area. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that the shop is located at a distance of 37 meters in the lane from the main road and therefore shifting of the shop is not necessary and the shop is functioning from 1.9.2005 without any disturbance to the public and the sale proceeds increase the Government revenue. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that no school or temple is located nearby the liquor shop. The Divisional Excise Officer, Tindivanam, recommended retention of the shop in the said place. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that the people residing nearer to the shop have already given a statement that there is no disturbance to the public. Petitioners representation was considered and enquiry report was submitted to the District Collector on 28.2.2008. No personal or property right of the petitioner is affected and the writ petition is to be dismissed.
5. A reply affidavit was filed by the petitioner stating that 100 houses are located in the area and the wine shop is surrounded by residential buildings and not by commercial buildings. The distance between the District Munsif Court and wine shop is only 30 meters.
6. The learned counse