Impugned closure order set aside for violating natural justice; fresh hearing mandated before TASMAC shop relocation.

ORDER

The present writ petition is filed challenging the impugned proceedings dated 13.03.2026 by the 1st respondent whereby petitioner was directed to close Bar No.4381 situated at Plot No.9, Survey No.388, Pavendar Street, Ninakkarai Village, Maraimalai Nagar, Chengalpattu.

2. Learned counsel for petitioner would submit that he is the license holder to the Bar attached to TASMAC Shop and that the license period was valid till 31.12.2025. Petitioner would submit that he was the highest bidder. Petitioner would challenge the impugned order of closure on the premise that it is contrary to the directions of the Single Judge in W.P.No.4381 of 2026 and he would also bring to the notice of this Court that prior to the above writ petition, a Public Interest Litigation came to be filed before this Court in W.P. No.4381 of 2026 directing relocation of the subject TASMAC Shop, the same was dismissed after finding as under:

“2. As to where a liquor shop should be located is governed by the Tamil Nadu Liquor Retail Vending (In Shops and Bars) Rules, 2003. The distances of the school and church, on petitioner’s own showing, does not come within the prohibited area. This is clear from a perusal of Rule 8 of the Rules, which provides that no shop shall be established in municipal corporations and municipalities within a distance of 50 metres and in other areas within 100 metres from any place of worship or educational institutions. The proviso relaxes the aforesaid criteria of distance restriction by providing that the same shall not apply to area designated as “Commercial” or “Industrial” by the Development or Town Planning Authorities.

3. In that view of the matter, we are unable to grant any relief to the petitioner. It is open to the petitioner to seek indulgence of the State for modification/amendment of the existing statutory policy with regard to location of liquor shop to the effect that liquor shop should not be allowed to be established on the side of the road which provides access to school for the school~going children.

Writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.”

2.1. From a reading of the above portions of the order, it appears that the limited liberty was granted only to seek modification/ amendment of the existing statutory policy regarding re-location of the liquor shop, however, thereafter certain objections were apparently raised regarding the location of the shop and petitioner was compelled to come to this Court seeking a direction to the respondents not to re-locate or close the subject TASMAC Shop in W.P. No.4381 of 2026. The learned Judge on hearing the matter was pleased to dispose of the writ petition with the following directions:

“In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks for a direction to the respondents not to relocate or close the TASMAC shop in question. The petitioner is having a bar license to run the TASMAC shop in question. The petitioner claims that his license expires only on 31.06.2026, and therefore, if the TASMAC shop in question is relocated or closed, it will be detrimental to his interest.

5. This Court is not expressing any opinion on the merits of the respective contentions of the petitioner as well as the complainant. No prejudice will be caused to the first respondent or the complainant if the petitioner’s objections not to relocate or close the TASMAC shop in question is considered on merits and in accordance with law. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of in the following manner:~

(a) The petitioner shall submit his written objections to the first respondent within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

(b) On receipt of such written objections, the first respondent sha