The court ensures adherence to licensing agreements and disputes rooted in public versus private interests in commercial operations.

(Order of the Court was made by N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.)

This Writ Petition has been seeking a direction to forbear the respondents 1 and 2 from shifting or relocating the TASMAC liquor vending shop bearing No.6708, located pursuant to the Rental Agreement dated 23.09.2024 between the petitioner and the second respondent herein.

2. The brief facts of the cases ares as follows:

Originally, a license was given to run a TASMAC shop to the third respondent herein viz., T.P.Karthikeyan, which is just opposite to the present place and his license was expired in the year 2023. Later it appears that, the Writ Petitioner was granted license to run the TASMAC Shop.

2.1. At this stage, the 4^th respondent herein, viz., T. Karuppiah, filed a Writ Petition before this Court in W.P. (MD) No. 10853 of 2024, seeking a writ of Mandamus to restrain the respondents from opening a TASMAC shop on Okkur-Panniyur Road, Punniavayal Village, Audiyarkovil Post and Taluk, Pudukkottai District. The 4^th respondent contended that the present location is one of the best sites and that there has been no objection from the village residents. Therefore, the proposal by TASMAC to shift the shop is unnecessary. The very plea made in the earlier Writ Petition filed by the 4^th respondent herein was that the existing shop run by the third respondent should not be shifted and should continue at the same location. With that intention, the earlier Writ Petition was filed.

2.2. In the said Writ Petition, written instructions were submitted by TASMAC stating that, at present, there was no proposal to shift the TASMAC shop from its existing location to any other location until 29.04.2024. In the event that they received any application for opening a TASMAC shop, the same would be considered in accordance with the Tamil Nadu Liquor Retail Vending (in Shops and Bars) Rules, 2003. It now appears that the Writ Petitioner has been granted a license in accordance with these rules.

2.3. Thereafter, taking advantage of the undertaking given by TASMAC, the 4th respondent filed a Contempt Petition in Cont. P. (MD) No. 1334 of 2025. In the said Contempt Petition, this Court directed TASMAC to re-shift the shop, contending that they had violated the undertaking previously given before this Court.

3. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.

4. On perusal of the records, it is evident that, as indicated above, the entire episode has been orchestrated by the 4^th respondent to satisfy some ulterior motive. Earlier, the 4^th respondent had filed a Writ Petition insisting that the TASMAC shop, situated just opposite to the proposed location, should not be shifted elsewhere. In the said Writ Petition, TASMAC submitted written instructions stating that there was no proposal to shift the shop until 29.04.2024, and further clarified that any application for a license would be considered strictly in accordance with the Tamil Nadu Liquor Retail Vending (in Shops and Bars) Rules, 2003. Subsequently, when the petitioner filed an application to run a TASMAC shop, a license was duly granted, however, the 4^th respondent sought to obstruct this by filing a Contempt Petition

5. It is relevant to note that the grievance of the contempt petitioner, viz., the 4^th respondent herein, is that the present location earmarked by TASMAC for opening a shop is allegedly objected to by the villagers. The fact remains that even at the time of granting the license to the petitioner, the 4^th respondent was summoned, inquiries were made, and during field inspection, it was found that none of the villagers raised any objection. It is also pertinent to note that