SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2012 Supreme(Mad) 693

High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. JAICHANDREN
S. Simon
Versus
The District Collector, Coimbtaore & Others
W.P.No.24656 of 2011
Decided On : 09-02-2012

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. P. Saravanan, Advocate.
For the Respondents:R1, R4, Mr. N. Sakthivel, Government Advocate, R2 & R3, Mr. S. Muthuraj, Advocates.

The right to seek remedy under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, but the need for sufficient evidence to support the claims.

Headnote:

Liquor Shop - Residential Nuisance - The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Article 21 of the Constitution of India - [The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 133; Article 21 of the Constitution of India]

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought the relocation of a liquor shop from a residential area due to disturbances caused by drunkards. The court found insufficient evidence to grant the relief but directed a detailed inquiry by the first respondent.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioner failed to sufficiently convince the court on the merits of the claims and thus did not grant the relief sought. However, directed the first respondent to conduct a detailed inquiry into the claims.

Issues: Residential nuisance due to a liquor shop, petitioner's failure to provide sufficient evidence, and the need for a detailed inquiry by the first respondent.

Ratio Decidendi: Insufficient evidence presented by the petitioner led to the court's decision not to grant the relief. However, the court directed a detailed inquiry by the first respondent into the claims made by the petitioner.

Final Decision: The writ petition was disposed of with the direction for a detailed inquiry by the first respondent.

Judgment :-

1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsels appearing for the respondents.

2. The petitioner has stated that nearly 500 families are residing, peacefully, in Mullai Nagar area, in Coimbatore, for over 30 years. Even though Mullai Nagar area is a purely residential area a Tamilnadu State Marketing Corporation Shop No.1715 had been opened in the said area, contrary to the relevant provisions of law. Many antisocial elements, after consuming liquor in the said Tamilnadu State Marketing Corporation shop, have been causing serious disturbances to the local residents and for those who are visiting the area. A number of drunkards have been causing problems to the women and children of the area and to those who are going to the Sivan temple, situated at about 100 feet from the Tamilnadu State Marketing Corporation shop. In spite of several representations having been submitted to the first respondent, on 3.9.2007, 25.2.2008, and 3.7.2010, to shift the Tamilnadu State Marketing Corporation shop from the said residential area to some other place, there has been no response from he first respondent, till date. In such circumstances, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had relied on the decision a Division Bench of this Court, reported in The Tamilnadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd. Vs. R.M.Shah and others (2011 Writ L.R. 267), wherein, it had been held that the nuisance caused to the public, on account of the functioning of the liquor shops, would give a cause of auction to the affected parties to approach the Magistrate concerned, under Section 133 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Any person who is deprived of his right to live a peaceful life, on account of the nuisance created by a liquor shop, could challenge the action of locating the shop in a residential or semi-residential locality, as it offends Article 21 of the Constitution of India, notwithstanding the fact that the liquor shop satisfies the distance criteria.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had also relied on the decision, reported in S.Manivannan Vs. District Collector, Villupuram and others (2011) 3 MLJ 956, wherein, it has been held that trading of liquor in prime and busy localities, causing disturbance and hardship to the general public including women and school children, amounts to violation of their fundamental right to lead a peaceful life, guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It had also been held that liquor business being conducted in prime areas causing nuisance to the general public is liable to be shifted to another locality though there are no statutory restrictions prohibiting the location of the liquor shop in the area in question.

5. A counter affidavit, dated 15.12.2011, has been filed on behalf of the third respondent, wherein, the averments in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition have been denied. It has been stated that there is no Sivan temple situated close to the Tamilnadu State Marketing Corporation shop, as alleged by the petitioner. It has also been stated that regular poojas are not performed at the place, said to be a temple. Only a single stone idol had been kept in an open space. There is no disturbance to the worshippers, as alleged by the petitioner.

6. It has also been stated that the Deputy Commissioner (Excise), Coimbatore, had conducted an inspection through the District Manager and a report had been submitted to the first respondent, vide Na.Ka. En.4530/07/K5, dated 4.10.2007. In the said report it had been clearly stated that no disturbance is being caused due to the location of the shop in the area in question. It has also been stated that there is no temple, mosque, church, hospital, school, or bus stand, within a radius of 100 meters from the Tamilnadu State Marketing Corporati




Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top