IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 09-12-2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE W.P. No. 48029 of 2025 and W.M.P. Nos.53637, 53641 & 53643 of 2025 SAKTHIVEL Petitioner(s)

Vs

1. The Government Of Tamilnadu Rep By Its Secretary, Prohibition, Home And Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009

2.The District Collector Kancheepuram District

3.The Chairman Cum Managing Director Tamilnadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd, 4th Floor, Thalamuthu Natarajan Maligai, Egmore, Chennai-600 008

4.The District Manager(tasmac)

Kancheepuram (north)district, Thirumzhisai Phase (3), Chembarampakkam, Chennai-600 123 Respondent(s)

PRAYER call for the records of the District collector (TASMAC) Kancheepuram District the 2nd respondent herein culminating in Na.Ka.No.2022/2023/V1 dated 5.11.2025 and the subsequent proceedings of District Manager Tasmac, Kancheepuram (North)District the 4th respondent herein in Na.Ka.No.4035/A1/2025 dated 2.12.2025 and quash the same and further directions to the 2nd to 4th respondents to drop all further action in shifting the Tasmac shop No.4035 from the petitioner premises at Door No.77,Nandambakkam village, Sriperumbudur Taluk, kancheepuram District to the proposed place Door No.56, Plot No.827, survey No.109/1 cini production Assistant Nagar, Pudupet village, Sriperumbudur Taluk, Kancheepuram District For Petitioner(s): Mr T. Mohan, Senior Counsel For Mr B.Sundarapandiyan For Respondent(s): Mr Balathandayutham, SGP For R1 & R2 Mr K.Balakrishnan For R3 and R4

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed, challenging the impugned order dated

05.11.2025 passed by the second respondent and the subsequent proceedings dated 02.12.2025 passed by the fourth respondent.

2.Under the impugned orders, the TASMAC Shop bearing No.4035 has been directed to be shifted to another place for administrative reasons. The petitioner is the owner of the building in which the existing TASMAC Shop is located. The grievance of the petitioner is that without assigning any reason, the impugned orders have been passed by the respective respondents for shifting of his TASMAC Shop to another place.

3.Earlier, the petitioner had approached this Court by filing a writ petition objecting to the shifting of the TASMAC Shop since the objections raised by the petitioner before the District Collector was not considered. An interim order was also passed by this Court in the said writ petition, pending disposal of the said writ petition restraining the respondents from shifting the shop, pending disposal of the enquiry proceedings based on the petitioner’s representation objecting to the shifting of the TASMAC Shop. However, the respondents, thereafter claimed to have conducted an enquiry based on the petitioner’s representation and had now passed the impugned orders, which are the subject matter of challenge in this writ petition, wherein the respective respondents have rejected the petitioner’s objections for shifting of the TASMAC Shop. In the impugned orders, the reason given by the respondents for rejecting the petitioner’s request is that due to administrative reasons, the TASMAC Shop of the petitioner has to be shifted to another place. They have referred to certain reports in the impugned order. The petitioner has challenged the impugned orders on the following grounds:

a)The second respondent has failed to see that there is no rule violation in opening the TASMAC Shop in the premises of the petitioner. Therefore, according to the petitioner, on the sole ground of administrative reasons, the TASMAC Shop cannot be shifted;

b)No field inspection was conducted by the respondents before passing orders for shifting of the petitioner’s TASMAC Shop;

c)In the earlier order dated 03.03.2024 passed by the respondents for shifting of the petitioner’s TASMAC Shop, it was stated that there is an approach road, which is in bad condition and therefore, the public will be affected as there is a possibility of road accidents happening due to the