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 mandated by the statutory Rules of 2003.

ORDER :

D. Bharatha Chakravarthy, J.

1.The Contempt Petition is filed, alleging willful disobedience of the order dated 04.03.2026, passed in W.P.(MD) No. 26028 of 2025.

2. During the hearing of the contempt petition, it was represented on behalf of the respondents/contemnors’ authorities that an order had already been passed on 11.03.2026, considering the petitioner's objections, completing the enquiry, and permitting the shop. Therefore, W.P.(MD)No.8990 of 2026 is filed challenging the same. Since both are interconnected, they are disposed of by this common order.

3. The brief factual background in which these proceedings arise is that the petitioner claims to be a resident of Netaji Nagar, Perumangalur Post, Peravurani Taluk, Thanjavur District. TASMAC earlier proposed to open a shop at Door Nos. 114, 115 and 116, Lenin Nagar, Main Road, Netaji Nagar, Perumangalur Post, Peravurani Taluk, Thanjavur District. When the shop was proposed to be located, there was public agitation, and a peace committee meeting was held on 30.06.2014. Pursuant thereto, the proposal was dropped. However, on 11.09.2025, the District Collector, Thanjavur, passed an order granting permission to open the retail outlet in S.No. 162/22A, which is also on the same street. The said order was challenged before this Court for a flagrant violation of the Tamil Nadu Liquor Retail Vending (In Shops and Bars) Rules, 2003, more specifically, Rule 8(3).

4. It is the contention of the petitioner that the petitioner, as well as the others, had made objections by way of representation to the District Collector, and as per the proviso to Rule 8(3) of the said Rules, 2003, the Collector has to consider the representation and pass orders thereon before granting permission. When the matter came up for hearing, it was reported before this Court that in view of the Rule position, a fresh notice is thereafter published and pursuant thereto, the objections of everyone will be considered and it was submitted that the enquiry was proposed to be conducted on 06.03.2026. Accordingly, the following order was passed in the said writ petition in W.P(MD)No.26028 of 2025, dated 04.03.2026 and paragraphs 4 and 5 are extracted hereunder for ready reference:

“...4. It is submitted that the notice dated 28.02.2026 was also received by the Petitioner. Therefore, it will be open for the petitioner and also any other person who is interested to submit their objections to the second Respondent/District Collector. The second Respondent/District Collector has to first consider the objections and dispose of the same as per the Rules and depending on his decision only, the further decision to locate the shop or not, can be taken.

5. Therefore, in view of the same, the petitioner or any person interested can appear before the District Collector on 06.03.2026, the date fixed for enquiry and it will be open for the petitioner or anybody else to submit their objections and the same shall be considered as per the Rules. It is needless to mention that unless a decision is taken, the TASMAC shop cannot be located in the said place.”

5. Under the said circumstances, it is the contention of the petitioner that the shop was opened on 11.03.2026. An urgent motion CONT. P. (MD) No. 872 of 2026 was moved, complaining of willful disobedience of the order. When the matter came up for hearing thereafter, an order dated 11.03.2026 was produced before this Court, showing that the District Collector had passed the order on the objections as required under the proviso to Rule 9, and thereafter, only the shop was located.

6. It is the contention of