SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

Tirupattur People Awarencess & – Appellant
Versus
The District Collector – Respondent
WP 5145/2018



Advocates:
['M/S A SURESH SAKTHI MURUGAN', 'T N RAJAGOPALAN G P', '', 'ACCETPS NOTICE', 'P ARUMUGARAJAN S C', 'ACCEPTS NOTICE']

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 26.03.2019

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR

and

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD

W.P.No.5145 of 2018

W.M.P.No.6317 of 2018

Tirupattur People Awareness &

Activation Sangam,

Represented by its Secretary,

D.Ashokan

.. Petitioner

Vs.

1. The District Collector,

Vellore District.

2. The Managing Director,

Tamil Nadu State Marketing

Corporation Ltd. (TASMAC)

4th Floor, CMDA Tower-II,

Egmore, Chennai 600 008.

3. The District Manager,

Tamil Nadu State Marketing

Corporation Ltd. (TASMAC)

No.1, Katpadi Road,

Vellore 632 004.

4. The Revenue Divisional Officer,

RDO Office, Tirupattur,

Vellore District 635 601.

.. Respondents

Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India, issuance of a writ of Mandamus,

directing the respondents for the closure of TASMAC retail

liquor vending outlet No.11058 situated near Vinayagar Hindu

Temple, Old Bus Stand, Tirupattur, Vellore District, based

on the petitioner Union's representation, dated 22.09.2017.

For Petitioner

: Mr.Suresh Sakthi Murugan

For Respondents 1 & 4

: Mr.T.N.Rajagopalan

Government Pleader

For Respondents 2 & 3

: Mr.P.Arumugarajan

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

O R D E R

(Order of this Court was made by S.MANIKUMAR, J.)

Instant public interest litigation has been filed for a

writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents for closure of

TASMAC retail liquor vending outlet No.11058 situated near

Vinayagar Hindu Temple, Old Bus Stand, Tirupattur, Vellore

District, based on the petitioner Union's representation,

dated 22.09.2017.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that the TASMAC is

running a liquor retail vending outlet bearing No.11058,

which is situated opposite to the Hindu Vinayagar Temple,

Old Bus Stand, Tirupattur, Vellore District. The distance

between the said Temple and TASMAC outlet is mere 3 meters.

Due to this outlet, devotees to the said Temple, mainly

women and girl children are afraid of indecents and rude

behaviour of drunken persons. Moreover, near to the TASMAC

outlet, 44 small traders are doing business in a shopping

mall called as Tirupattur Textiles Mart, which is a

marketing place for common public. Large number of people in

and around of Tirupattur, visit the said marketing place

daily, to buy their needs. On the whole day, customers

coming to the TASMAC outlet in large numbers are causing

public nuisance after consuming liquor, in the accompanying

bar of the said TASMAC outlet.

3.

On 23.06.2015, the petitioner has sent a

representation to the District Collector, Vellore District,

1st respondent, requesting them to shift the said TASMAC

outlet to some other place, stating the aforesaid reasons.

Since no reply was given, the Association sent an

application, dated 07.10.2015, under the Right to

Information Act, 2005, to the Public Information Officer of

the 1st Respondent Office, seeking for the details of action

taken on the said Representation. Since no reply was given

on his RTI application, the petitioner's association filed a

first appeal before the District Revenue Officer, Vellore

District. On 25.01.2016, the District Revenue Officer,

Vellore District gave him a reply, stating that the District

Manager, TASMAC Ltd, i.e., the 3rd Respondent has

communicated the Assistant Commissioner (Excise), Vellore

that the said TASMAC Retail Vending Outlet is situated

within 50 metres of Vinagavar Temple and their office has

instructed the employees of the said TASMAC outlet to find

alternative place and after finding a suitable alternative

place and after getting necessary orders from respondents 1

and 2, shifting would be done.

4.

The petitioner has further submitted that as

nothing has happened for more than 6 months, another

representation, dated 01.08.2016, was given o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top