IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized that compliance with the distance regulations in the Tamil Nadu Liquor Retail Vending Rules is paramount, and public objections must be considered within the legal framework.

ORDER :

R.SURESH KUMAR, J.

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a Writ of Mandamus, to forbear the official respondents from opening / establishing the recreation club of the fifth respondent herein and its bar situated at No.2, Thambi Garden, Lingam Nagar, Kulumani Main Road, Nearby Fish Market, Woraiyur, Trichy – 3 and by considering the petitioner's representation dated 22.04.2024, within the period stipulated by this Court.

The prayer sought for herein is for Writ of Mandamus, seeking to forbear the official respondents from opening / establishing the recreation club of the fifth respondent herein and its bar situated at No.2, Thambi Garden, Lingam Nagar, Kulumani Main Road, Nearby Fish Market, Woraiyur, Trichy – 3, by considering the petitioner's representation dated 22.04.2024.

2.The petitioner has filed the present writ petition as a Public Interest Litigation, as he claims that he is a public spirited person. It is his concern on behalf of the public in the locality at Thambi Garden, Lingam Nagar, Kulumani Main Road, Nearby Fish Market, Woraiyur, Trichy, that so far in that locality there has been no TASMAC shop or any club selling the IMFL by getting F.L.2 licence. When that being so, some people have made arrangements to open a recreation club in the name of S.S.Manamahil Madram, in the locality and within a week or two they may open the recreation club, where if the F.L.2 license is given that would become only a liquor selling place for which main purpose only such recreation club is established. Therefore, the petitioner on behalf of the public in that locality had already given objections to the first respondent as well as the second respondent. Though such an objection had been given that was neither considered or even if it is considered nor decided in favour of the public by rejecting the claim of the fifth respondent for providing any F.L.2 license to sell liquor. Therefore, at this juncture, the petitioner having no other option on behalf of the local public has moved the present petition with the aforesaid prayer as a Public Interest Litigation.

3.Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner who would submit that, under Rule 8(1) of “the Tamil Nadu Liquor Retail Vending (In Shops and Bars) Rules, 2003” [hereinafter referred to as “2003 Rules”, for the sake of brevity], though it has been stated that within the Municipal Corporation and Municipalities, no liquor license shall be permitted, if any temple or educational institution is located within the 50 meters radius, as there is a temple which is located nearby but not within 50 meters, but within 100 meters that was taken as an advantage by the authorities concerned including the second respondent and they intended to give such license to the fifth respondent.

4.In this context, learned Counsel would further submit that whenever such application is made for getting license for selling liquor, while considering such applications for granting license to any shop or club, the public opinion and public concern must be considered predominantly by the authorities concerned and if the majority of the public opposes the coming up of a new shop or club for selling IMFL, the authorities shall restrain themselves from issuing license. This is the basis for which the petitioner though had made an attempt before the authorities to stop the grant of license, having failed in the said attempt has approached this Court and seeks indulgence of this Court by filing a Writ of Mandamus, he contended.

5.We have heard Mr.P.Thilak Kumar, learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 & 2 and Mr.T.Senthil Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents 3 & 4.

6.Learned Government Pleader has brought to our notice that whatever the objection that had been given by the petitioner or any third party on behalf of the public had already been considered by the second respondent / District Collector, at th