BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
B. PUGALENDHI, J.
Thangaraju – Petitioner
Versus
The District Collector, Ramanathapuram and Others – Respondents
W.P. (MD) No. 12828 of 2023, W.M.P. (MD) No. 10861 of 2023
Decided On : 05-03-2024
TASMAC - Licensee grievance against shifting of TASMAC Shop - Tamil Nadu Liquor Retail Vending (In Shops and Bar) Rules, 2003, Rule 8 - The court discussed the violation of Rule 8, the conditions for FL-3 license, and the mechanical manner in which licenses were granted.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a licensee, sought to prevent the shifting of TASMAC Shop No. 6933, alleging instigation by respondents 5 to 7. The court appointed an Advocate Commissioner to investigate the violation of norms prescribed by Rule 8 of the Tamil Nadu Liquor Retail Vending (In Shops and Bar) Rules, 2003.
Finding of the Court:
The court found no violation of Rule 8 by the TASMAC Shop. It also highlighted the mechanical manner in which FL-3 licenses were granted and the lack of compliance with the conditions for FL-3 license.
Issues: Violation of Rule 8, FL-3 license compliance, mechanical grant of licenses
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of complying with the conditions for FL-3 license and the need for proper scrutiny before granting licenses.
Final Decision: The writ petition was disposed of with liberty to the parties to work out their remedy before the Commissioner in the pending appeal. The Commissioner was directed to review the licenses and pass necessary orders in accordance with the law.
JUDGMENT :
B. PUGALENDHI, J.
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of writ of mandamus forbearing the respondents 1 to 4 from closing down or shifting the TASMAC Shop No. 6933 without complying with the order dated 24.01.2023 passed in WP (MD) No. 21949 of 2022 by this Court.
1. The petitioner Thangaraj was a licensee to sell snacks and collect empty bottles from the bar attached to TASMAC Shop No. 6933, which is situated in SPM Theatre lane, Paramakudi on Madurai - Ramanathapuram Road.
2. The petitioner has approached this Court with a grievance that at the instigation of respondents 5 to 7, who are running a recreation club and a lodge in the name of SMY Lodge and Lucky Recreation Club, a decision has been taken by the District Administration to shift the TASMAC Shop No. 6933 to some other place.
3. According to the petitioner this TASMAC Shop is situated just opposite to the said lodge and recreation club belonging to the respondents 5 to 7. The respondents 5 to 7 thinking that this TASMAC shop is affecting their business, had instigated the 8th respondent/a politician to file a public interest litigation. The 8th respondent the office bearer of a political party has filed a writ petition in WP (MD) No. 21949 of 2022 that the TASMAC Shop No. 6933 is functioning as against the guidelines and therefore, it needs to be shifted. This Court disposed that writ petition without expressing any opinion on the merits of the representation, directing the District Collector, Ramanathapuram District to consider the representation of 8th respondent and to take a decision within a stipulated time by providing opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned. Pursuant to the order, the District Collector has also issued notice to the TASMAC Manager and to this petitioner on 23.03.2023 for conducting enquiry on 30.03.2023. Therefore, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus not to shift the TASMAC Shop without complying with the orders of this Court in WP (MD) No. 21949 of 2022, dated 24.01.2023.
4. In the meantime one Rajinikanth owner of the premises filed a writ petition before this Court in WP (MD) No. 3171 of 2023 as against the proceedings of the District Collector, Ramanathapuram in Na. Ka. No. PP4/51610/2022, dated 07.11.2022. The said writ petition was disposed considering the alternative remedy available under Rule 9A of the Tamil Nadu Liquor Retail Vending (In Shops and Bar) Rules, 2003, [herein shall be referred to as ‘the Rules’] permitting the petitioner to file an appeal before the appellate authority.
5. The Commissioner has filed a status report that the said Rajinikanth has already filed an appeal under Rule of the Rules and the same is posted for enquiry.
6. Since the petitioner has raised several objections that at the instance of respondents 5 to 7, who are having a lodge and bar with FL-3 license, the 8th respondent/a political person has filed the earlier writ petition to shift the TASMAC Shop.
7. This Court based on the request of the petitioner during the course of argument has appointed an Advocate Commissioner to ascertain whether there is any violation of norms prescribed.
8. The learned Advocate Commissioner has filed his status report that the TASMAC Shop No. 6933 is 302.5 metres from away from Ramalinga School and 288 metres away from KJEM School. There are mosque and church at a distance of 127 metres and 186 metres respectively.
9. Rule 8 of the Rules prescribes certain conditions on the location of any TASMAC Shop and the same is extracted hereunder:
(1) No shop shall be established in Municipal Corporations and Municipalities within a distance of 50(fifty) metres and in other areas 100 (hundred) metres from any place of worship or education institutions:
Provided that the distance restriction shall not apply in areas designated as “Commercial” or “Industrial” by the Development or Town Planning Authorities:
Provided furth
The central legal point established is the necessity for proper scrutiny and compliance with the conditions for granting FL-3 licenses.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the petitioner to utilize the appeal provision under Section 9A of the Tamil Nadu Liquor Retail Vending (In Shops and Bars) ....
An administrative order granting approval for a retail liquor shop is void if passed without considering public objections or if it is enforced prior to its formal communication to the objectors, as ....
Writ petitions under Article 226 can direct administrative authorities to consider representations under statutory regulations.
Impugned closure order set aside for violating natural justice; fresh hearing mandated before TASMAC shop relocation.
The court ensures adherence to licensing agreements and disputes rooted in public versus private interests in commercial operations.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.