T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.

This Writ Petition designed as a Public Interest Litigation seeks for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the State to initiate penal action against the respondents 2 to 5 for abusing their office and endangering their lives by shifting the wine shop-cum-bar to a premises which is an illegal construction, located under a High Tension Power Line,(HTPL), in a residential area and on a reserved site and for a direction to demolish the same.

2. The case of the petitioners is that the first petitioner is a Resident's Welfare Association and the second petitioner, the President of the Association, which is said to have performed several social welfare measures, have come forward with the present grievance with regard to location of a liquor shop. The objection regarding the location of the liquor shop is on four grounds, namely, the place is a residential locality, the site on which the shop has been put up is a reserved site, the shop is located under a High Tension Electric Line and the construction is an illegal construction. The petitioner is said to have met the second respondent as well as his subordinates/ superiors and submitted several representations. The petitioner would further state that the building to which the shop has been shifted is an illegal construction which is owned by the sixth respondent, who is a Ward Councillor. In the typed set of papers filed along with the Writ Petition, a copy of the representation given by the petitioner to the second respondent dated 13.10.2014, the copy of the CSR issued by the fifth respondent Police, dated 06.12.2012 and the complaint addressed to the first respondent, dated 18.11.2014, have been enclosed. In the additional typed set of papers, the petitioner has enclosed the certain press reports and photographs to show that the pubic have protested and the building is an illegal building under a High Tension Power Line. Copies of the layout plan has also been circulated.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner referred to the photographs and sought to demonstrate that the construction is an illegal construction in a residential area and the wine shop is located under the HTPL and there is a prohibition for putting up any construction under the HTPL and therefore, the shop has to be immediately removed. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further referred to the resolution passed by the Municipality for removal of the shops under the HTPL and the decision taken by the Municipal Council not to permit any building under the HTPL.

4. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the second respondent by referring to the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent, submitted that all the para-meters were considered and only after being fully satisfied that the site where the shop has been located is an unobjectionable site, the District Collector granted permission and writ petitioner itself has been filed only with the personal motive and there is no public interest.

5. The counter affidavit and the additional counter affidavit filed by the third respondent are on similar lines as that of the stand taken by the second respondent, the District Collector. With the above submissions, the learned counsel for the respondents 2 and 3 prayed for dismissal of the Writ Petition.

6. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and carefully considered the materials placed on record.

7. As noticed above, the objections raised by the petitioner with regard to the location of the subject liquor shop is on four grounds (i.e.,) that the shop is located in a residential area; a reserved site; housed in an illegal construction and under a HTPL. The petitioner would rely upon the decision taken by the Udumalpet Municipality not to permit any construction under HTPL. The petitioner has not pointed out any violation of the Rules framed under the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act relating to location of liquor shop. It is subm