1. The present Writ Petition is filed, as a “Public Interest Litigation”, for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondents from opening TASMAC Shop at Vadamalapuram Village, Sivakasi Taluk, Virudhunagar District.

2. The case of the petitioner is that he is a permanent resident of Vadamalapuram Village, Sivakasi Taluk, Virudhunagar District and he represents the 4th Ward, Vadamalapuram Panchayat. In the said village, there is no TASMAC Shop at any point of time and on noticing that there is a proposal to locate TASMAC Shop, the local panchayat passed a unanimous resolution, thereby resolving that the District Collector should not grant permission for opening any Liquor Shop in the said village. The said resolution further states that there is a High School in the said village and the girls surrounding six villages are studying in the said school and the villagers also launched a signature campaign. The objections raised by the village people were duly forwarded to the respondents herein. The second respondent received the said objections on 17.7.2013, as per the postal acknowledgment card. However, the second respondent, without considering the said objections, has submitted a proposal to the first respondent for opening a Liquor Shop at Door No. 1/176-1, Arjuna Nagar, Sukkirawarpatti Road, Vadamalapuram. In the said communication, it is stated that no objections have been received from the public. Thus, the objection raised by the said village panchayat, by passing unanimous resolution, which was communicated to the second respondent, was not at all considered. Therefore, the recommendation was submitted without considering the relevant facts, which is vitiated and only for the purpose of augmenting the income, the respondents are proposing to open a liquor shop in Vadamalapuram Village.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that in spite of objections from the villagers and the unanimous resolution of the panchayat dated 1.7.2013, for opening liquor shop, the second respondent has submitted proposal recommending to establish the liquor shop, which is in violation of Article 47 of the Constitution of India.

4. When the Writ Petition was posted for admission, Mr. M. Muniasamy, learned Standing counsel, was directed to take notice on behalf of the second respondent and get instructions. Today, the learned Standing counsel produced the written instructions given by the second respondent dated 2.8.2013, wherein it is stated that on 19.6.2013, an inspection was conducted and a suitable place, viz., Door No. 1/176-1, Arjuna Nagar, Sukkirawarpatti Road, Vadamalapuram, was found out to establish a liquor shop and if such liquor shop is located in the said place, there will be lot of sale and it will fetch more income to the Government and the building owner, viz., P.Murugan, has also given an undertaking to give the said building for lease to locate the liquor shop. The learned Standing counsel, therefore, submitted that the recommendations made by the second respondent to the first respondent cannot be found fault with.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submitted that as the panchayat passed unanimous resolution on 1.7.2013 and the same was communicated to the second respondent, by Registered Post, the recommendation made by the second respondent on 24.7.2013 to the first respondent stating that there is no objection from the general public for locating Liquor Shop is contrary to the records.

6. We have considered the above rival submissions.

7. From the records, it is seen that the objections were submitted by the village people by Registered Post on 16.7.2013 and the said objections were received by the second respondent on 17.7.2013. The panchayat also passed a resolution on 1.7.2013, resolving that the District Collector should not grant permission for opening any Liquor Shop and the said resolution was also communicated to the second respondent. In such circums