IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 20-01-2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE WP No. 20882 of 2025 AND WMP Nos.23603, 23604, 53806 & 54600 OF 2025 M/s.Raising Sun Hotels Private Limited, Rep By Its Manager Praveen Raj Petitioner(s)

Vs

1. The Commissioner Of Prohibition And Excise

2nd Floor, Ezhilagam Building, Chepauk, Chennai-05

2.The District Collector Collectorate, Udhagamandalam- 643

001 The Nilgiris.

3.The Assistant Commissioner (excise)

The Nilgiris District, Udhagamandalam-643 001

4.The Regional Manager Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation (tasmac), 1, Regent Complex, Club Road, Nilgiris District-

643 001.

Respondent(s)

PRAYER Calling for the records of the order passed by the 1st respondent in his office proceedings K.Dis. No.P and E 2 (2) / 5583/ 2024 dated 08.04.2025 and quash the same and thereby permit them to resume business operations.

For Petitioner(s): Mr.S.R.Raghunathan, For Mr.Aditya Sarangarajan For Respondent(s): Mr.P.Kumaresan, AAG, Assisted by Mr.P.Balathandayutham, Spl.G.P. For R1 To R3 Ms.V.S.Saranya, Standing Counsel For R4

ORDER

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

08.04.2025 passed by the first respondent rejecting the petitioner’s request for re-opening the bar in the petitioner’s premises, which was sealed earlier by the second respondent on account of the alleged violation of the liquor licence conditions committed by the petitioner.

2.Earlier, the petitioner had filed a writ petition before this Court in W.P.

No.5215 of 2025 to direct the first respondent to consider the petitioner’s representation seeking for re-opening the bar in the petitioner’s premises within a time frame to be fixed by this court. In the said writ petition, by an order dated 17.02.2025, this Court had directed the first respondent to dispose of the petitioner’s representation dated 12.09.2024 seeking for re-opening of the bar within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the said order, after giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and other parties concerned and thereafter, communicate the said decision taken to the petitioner. Pursuant to the said direction, the impugned order dated 08.04.2025 came to be passed by the first respondent. However, as seen from the impugned order, the first respondent, instead of considering the petitioner’s representation dated 12.09.2024, which is given for a limited purpose i.e. for re-opening of the bar in the petitioner’s premises, has passed the impugned order cancelling the petitioner’s FL3 licence and has also directed the Assistant Commissioner (Excise), Nilgiris to seize the stocks of liquor available in the premises of the petitioner and also destroy the expired bottles of liquor by following the existing rules. The following are the un-disputed facts:

a)The petitioner was possessing FL3 licence for vending liquor and for consumption within the hotel premises of the petitioner from 2001 onwards;

b)The FL3 licence of the petitioner, which was renewed periodically earlier, was expired on 31.03.2025;

c)The petitioner submitted an application on 29.02.2024 with the respondents by paying necessary fee seeking renewal of the petitioner’s FL3 licence for a further period from 01.04.2024 to 31.03.2025. The said application was filed one month prior to the date of expiry of the existing FL3 licence, which is as per the Liquor Vending Rules;

d)On 12.03.2024, the bar of the petitioner in their premises was sealed by the third respondent on account of the alleged violation of the licence conditions said to have been committed by the petitioner.

3.The allegation of the third respondent is that a full bottle of alcohol was found outside the petitioner’s establishment along with a few broken glass bottles, which violates licence conditions, which does not permit the petitioner to allow liquor bottles to be taken outside the bar premises. On 12.09.2024, the petitioner submitted a representation to the respon