1. The petitioner has come up with the above writ petition, seeking the issue of a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents 1 to 4 to close the bar run by the 6th respondent at No.9, Sambanthamoorthy Street, Madurai-1.

2. Heard Mr.R.Subramanian, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.M.Alagathevan, learned Special Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 3, Mr.M.Muniyasamy, learned counsel for respondents 4 and 5, Mr.M.Meenakshisundaram, learned counsel for the 6th respondent, Mr.T.Arul, learned counsel for the respondents 7 to 12 and Mr.S.S.Sundar, learned counsel for the 13th respondent.

3. This petition has been filed purportedly in public interest to close the bar run in the 6th respondent club, on the short ground that there are lot of temples, meditation centres and places of religious and spiritual importance in the immediate vicinity of the club and that therefore the licence granted by the official respondents to the 6th respondent to run a bar has become a source of nuisance to the people of the locality.

4. The writ petition was first filed during the vacation sitting of this Court during the summer vacation. On 25.05.2014, when the writ petition was moved for orders as to admission for the first time, before the Vacation Bench, the Vacation Bench passed the following order:

"Mr. R. Sathishkumar, learned Additional Government Pleader takes notice for the respondents 1 to 5. Notice to the 6th respondent returnable by two weeks. Private notice is also permitted.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the 6th respondent club is located in the residential area and it is selling and serving liquor to large people and vicious the residential atmosphere. However, Mr.Sathiskumar, learned Additional Government Pleader submitted that the area is not residential area. To ascertain the facts, we directed the learned Additional Government Pleader to get instructions by way of an affidavit from the jurisdictional Inspector of Police about the nature of area.

3. Mr.V.Thangavel, Inspector of Police, (Prohibition Enforcement Wing), Madurai, filed an affidavit giving all the details except the details which this Court has sought for, whether the area is residential area or not.

4. Therefore, though there is no interim prayer sought for in the Writ Petition, the facts of the case would disclose that a pucca bar is being run in the midst of the residential area as evidence from the photographs which shows large number of people consuming liquor. In view of that, there shall be order of interim injunction restraining the sixth respondent from functioning the club. The official respondents are directed to take action forthwith."

5. Thereafter, the 6th respondent club filed an application in M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2014 for vacating the interim order. Subsequently, a group of individuals, claiming to be the residents in the locality, filed M.P.(MD)No.2 of 2014 to implead themselves as parties, for supporting the cause of the writ petition. This M.P.(MD)No.2 of 2014 was allowed by us, by an order dated 03.05.2014 and those petitioners were impleaded in the main writ petition as respondents 7 to 12.

6. member of the 6th respondent club also filed an application in M.P.(MD)No.3 of 2014 for impleading himself as a party to the writ petition, so as to support the case of the 6th respondent club. This miscellaneous application for impleading was also allowed on 03.06.2014 and the member of the 6th respondent club has now become the 13th respondent in the writ petition.

7. As stated earlier, the grievance of the petitioner about the licence granted to the 6th respondent club for running a bar is that the street in which the 6th respondent club is located is very thickly populated and that there is an Iyyappan Temple in West Masi Street, which is connected to the West Veli Street by Sambanthamoorthy Street, where the club is located. Therefore, according to the petitioner, the deities of Meenakshi Amman and Sundareswarar are taken