Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 30219

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N.SATHISH KUMAR, M.JOTHIRAMAN, JJ
P.Balasubramani – Appellant
Versus
The Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Prohibition and Excise Department, Ezhilagam, Chennai - 600005. – Respondent
W.P(MD)No.8987 of 2026

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.R.Sri Ram
For the Respondents:Mr.A.Kannan Additional Government Pleader, Mr.H.Arumugam, Mr.K.Sanjay Gandhi Government Advocate(Crl.Side)

Public interest prevails over individual interest in license grant decisions; authorities must consider all aspects absent supporting documents.

Headnote:The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to restrain authorities from granting an FL2 license to a club. Essential facts include the petitioner's representation dated 10.03.2026 against the license grant. The court noted the authorities' submission that no proposal was forwarded due to lack of documents from the petitioner. The court directed consideration of all aspects in public interest over individual interest. The sole issue was whether to forbear the grant of FL2 license based on the representation. The ratio decidendi emphasizes that authorities must evaluate proposals considering public interest prevailing over individual claims, particularly absent supporting documents. The writ petition is disposed of with directions to the authorities.

Table of Content
1. prayer to restrain fl2 license grant. (Para 1)
2. no proposal forwarded due to lack of documents. (Para 2)
3. consider public interest; petition disposed. (Para 3 , 4)

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 02/04/2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR and THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN W.P(MD)No.8987 of 2026 P.Balasubramani ... Petitioner Vs.

1. The Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Prohibition and Excise Department, Ezhilagam, Chennai - 600005.

2. The District Collector, Collectorate, Dindigul District.

3. The Assistant Commissioner (Excise), Collectorate, Dindigul District.

4. The District Manager, TASMAC, Dindigul District. 5. The Tahsildar, Kodaikanal, 6. The Superintendent of Police, 7. The Inspector of Police, Kodaikanal Police Station, Kodaikanal, 8. The Deputy Registrar, Sub Registrar Office, Taluk Office Compound, Annasalai Naidupuram, Kodaikanal, Dindigul District.

9. July 17 Recreation Club, Door No.4, 6FRQ + 77C Ward, No.C, 32, Old Convent Road, Near Hotel Grand Palace, Kodaikanal, Dindigul District -624 101. ... Respondents PRAYER :- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the respondents 1 to 8 from granting the FL2 license to the 9^th respondent Club based on the representation of the petitioner dated 10.03.2026.

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Sri Ram For R1 to R3 & R5 : Mr.A.Kannan Additional Government Pleader For R4 : Mr.H.Arumugam For R6 & R7 : Mr.K.Sanjay Gandhi Government Advocate(Crl.Side)

ORDER

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

The prayer in this writ petition is to issue a Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the respondents 1 to 8 from granting the FL2 license to the 9^th respondent Club based on the representation of the petitioner dated 10.03.2026.

2. Today, when the writ petition was taken up for hearing, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 and 5, on instructions, would submit that as the petitioner has not submitted any documents, the official respondents have not forwarded any proposal for grant of FL2 licence to the 9^th respondent Club.

3. In that view of the matter, it is for the authority concerned to consider various aspects and take a decision in the subject matter in public interest as prevail over individual interest.

4. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 30219

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASN.SATHISH KUMAR, M.JOTHIRAMAN, JJP.Balasubramani – AppellantVersusThe Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Prohibition and Excise Department, Ezhilagam, Chennai - 600005. – RespondentW.P(MD)No.8987 of 2026

Public interest prevails over individual interest in license grant decisions; authorities must consider all aspects absent supporting documents.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N.SATHISH KUMAR, M.JOTHIRAMAN, JJ
P.Balasubramani – Appellant
Versus
The Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Prohibition and Excise Department, Ezhilagam, Chennai - 600005. – Respondent
W.P(MD)No.8987 of 2026