Back
2019 Supreme(Mad) 494
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
ANITA SUMANTH, J.
S. Madasamy & Another - Appellants
Versus
The Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd., Rep. by its District Manager, Thiruvallur & Others - Respondents
Writ Petition Nos. 3828 & 4444 of 2019
Decided on : 30-04-2019
For the Petitioner:K. Selvaraj, M. Manimaran, Advocates.
For the Respondents:Damodaran, Advocate, Akil Akbar Ali, G.A.
The decision-making process of authorities in granting approval for the location of Tasmac shops must consider public concerns and should not be flawed or mechanical.
Headnote:
Tasmac Shops - Location in Residential Area - Tamil Nadu Liquor Retail Vending (shops and bars) Rules 2003 - Rule 8, Article 226 The Constitution of India
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, owners of properties in a residential area, sought a mandamus to open Tasmac wine shops in their buildings. The authorities initially approved the shops, but later revoked the approval due to public objections and concerns about public nuisance and law and order issues.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the authorities' approval process was flawed and mechanical, and the decision to revoke the approval was procedurally irregular. The court also held that the petitioners had the right to seek a mandamus, and the concerns of the public should be considered in such matters.
Issues: The issues involved the approval process for opening Tasmac shops in a residential area, public objections, and the authority of the petitioners to seek a mandamus.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of considering public concerns and the flawed decision-making process of the authorities in granting approval for the Tasmac shops.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petitions, citing the flawed decision-making process and the importance of considering public concerns in such matters.
(Prayer in W.P.No.3828 of 2019: PETITION under Article 226 The Constitution of India praying for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to forthwith implement the order of the District Collector, Chennai District dated 31.12.2018 in Letter No.L5/28203/2018, and the consequential order of the 1st respondent dated 08.01.2019 in Proc.No.A3/3263/2018 and consequently direct the respondents to open the Tasmac shop No.8918 in the petitioner’s building Door No.135, GNT Road, Puzhal, Chennai - 600 066.
Prayer in W.P.No.4444 of 2019: PETITION under Article 226 The Constitution of India praying for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to implement the proceedings of the first respondent in L5/26443/2018 dated 16.11.2018 and consequently direct the respondents to open the Tasmac shop No.8730 at Door No.140, GNT Road, Puzhal, Chennai - 600 066.)
1. The petitioners in both Writ Petitions are owners of property situated in GNT Road, Puzhal, Chennai - 66. Both petitioners were approached by the authorities of the Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Limited (in short ‘Tasmac’) for lease of their premises for locating Tasmac wine shops.
2. In W.P.No.3828 of 2019, the District Collector passed an order dated 31.12.2018 granting permission for opening of the shop bearing number 8918 and consequently the officials of the first respondent/Tasmac directed opening of the shop on 10.01.2019. However, the shop was not opened and hence the petitioner has approached this Court seeking a mandamus to direct the respondents to implement the order of the District Collector dated 31.12.2018 and the consequential order of the first respondent dated 10.01.2019. The District Collector has passed his order based on the recommendation of the District Manager, Tasmac and the No Objection Certificate (NOC) dated 20.10.2018 issued by the Inspector of Police, M-3 Puzhal Police Station.
3. The facts in W.P.No.4444 of 2019 are identical except in relation to the shop number, being 8730, the date of the NOC of the Inspector of Police, R 3, that is 08.09.2018 and the order of the District Collector directing opening of the shop, being 16.11.2018. For the sake of brevity, the facts, dates and circumstances in relation to W.P.No.3828 of 2019 are referred to in this order as being representative of the facts, dates and circumstances of both writ petitions except where specifically indicated otherwise.
4. The residents of GNT Road, in Puzhal, state that the area in which the shops are sought to be opened is a residential area. They have sought impleadment as respondents, in support of the Governments’ stand against the opening of the shops and have been impleaded, there being no objection to such impleadment by any of the parties to the writ petition. The stand of the impleaded residents is that the shops in question are sought to be opened in a residential area that would cause substantial public nuisance and that too in proximity to a Temple and a school, in violation of Regulation 3 of the Tamil Nadu Liquor Retail Vending (shops and bars) Rules 2003 (in short and henceforth ‘Rules’). They thus pray that the writ petitions be dismissed.
5. When the matter came up initially, notice was issued to the respondents, who obtained instructions and filed counters. The instructions, records produced and counter affidavits reveal a very indifferent as well as disturbing procedure adopted by the authorities in matters of grant of approval to the locating of the Tasmac wine shops.
6. The Tasmac had inspected the sites and found the same suitable for setting up the wine shops.
7. The Inspector of the Puzhal M-3 Police Station had initially granted a no-objection certificate (in short ‘NOC’) for opening of the shops. It is on the strength of this NOC that the District Collector has directed opening of the shops. The NOC granted by the Inspector is in the following terms:
“TAMIL”
8. Having granted the NOC, the very same officer has then filed
