SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 31340

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J
Pallavaram 13th Ward, Kudiyirupor Pothu Nala Sangam (Reg.No.81/2023) Represented by its President S.P. Gandhi – Appellant
Versus
The District Collector, Chengalpattu District, Chengalpattu – Respondent
Writ Petition



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.Ram for Mr.S.Sivakumar
For the Respondents: Mr.Yogesh Kannadasan Spl.G.P for R1, Mr.K.BALAKRISHNAN for R2 AND 3, Mr.C.Baskaran GA (CRL.SIDE) for R4

Writ courts refrain from directing statutory authorities on discretionary relocation powers under liquor rules amid disputed facts.

Headnote:Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and Rule 8 and 9 of the Tamil Nadu Liquor Retail Vending (in Shops and Bars) Rules, 2003, the petitioner association sought mandamus to relocate or close TASMAC shops near residential areas, places of worship, and a hospital due to public nuisance. Shops operational since 2013 on GST Road, within 500 meters, with claims of violation of distance norms. Court found no material evidence like scaled maps to prove violations, noting shops pre-existed objections. Petitioner relied on Supreme Court precedent for closure directions; issues framed as compliance with Rule 8 distance requirements from sensitive locations and authority to shift under Rule 9 vested in District Collector. Court observed disputed facts cannot be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction, limiting interference where statutory discretion exists. Writ petition stands disposed of.

Table of Content
1. petition seeks tasmac shop closure citing precedent. (Para 1 , 2)
2. shops near residences cause nuisance; existed since 2013. (Para 4)
3. relocation power with collector; disputed facts bar writ. (Para 5 , 6)
4. direct collector to decide; petition disposed. (Para 7)

..Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing respondents 2 and 3 to relocate and / or close the impugned TASMAC Retail vending shop No.4376 situated at No.88, GST Road, Pallavaram, Chennai-600 043 and shop No.4087 situated at No.1, Valluvarpet 4th street, Pallavaram, Cehnnai-600 043 based on the petitioner’s representation dated 13.10.2025 and consequently to direct the respondents to ensure that not to open the TASMAC shops in the GST Road, Pallavaram.

For Petitioner : Mr.Ram for Mr.S.Sivakumar For Respondents: Mr.Yogesh Kannadasan Spl.G.P for R1 Mr.K.BALAKRISHNAN, for R2 AND 3 Mr.C.Baskaran GA (CRL.SIDE), for R4

ORDER

The present writ petition has been filed for a direction to respondents 2 and 3 to relocate and/or close impugned TASMAC Retail vending shop No.4376 situated at No.88, GST Road, Pallavaram, Chennai-600 043 and shop No.4087 situated at No.1, Valluvarpet 4th street, Pallavaram, Chennai-600 043 based on petitioner’s representation dated 13.10.2025 and consequently direct respondents to ensure that TASMAC shops in GST Road, Pallavaram are not open.

2. Learned counsel for petitioner would place reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mahendra Prasad Agarwal vs Arvind Kumar Singh & Others, dated 10.02.2026 to suggest that he would want this Court to pass a positive direction, closing down subject TASMAC shops.

3.1. The case of petitioner is that TASMAC retail vending shop Nos.4376 and 4087 situated at GST Road, Pallavaram which is a National Highway NH-45. TASMAC shop No.4387 is situated at No.88, GST Road, Pallavaram and TASMAC shop No.4087 is situated at No.1, Valluvarpet, 4th Street, Pallavaram. GST road is a major arterial road connecting Chennai to southern districts and distance between the two TASMAC shops is less than 500 meters and both shops are facing GST road in Pallavaram Town. Petitioner association was registered on 20.02.2023 with the objective of maintaining the welfare, safety and peaceful living environment of residents of 13th Ward in Pallavaram town. TASMAC shops are situated in close and unacceptable proximity to residential buildings, apart from a private hospital which is situated about 21 meters from Shop No.4376, Mathaamman Allayam and Krishna temple is situated about 50 meters from the said shop. In between the two TASMAC shops, viz., 4376 and 4087 a mosque “Masjid Madina” is located, which is about 21 meters from shop No.4376 and 42 meters from Shop No.4037.

3.2. Subject TASMAC shops are causing nuisance since its customers clog roads, have loud conversations, get into argument/brawls, etc. Petitioner association has given a representation to Pallavaram constituency MLA who in turn has sent a representation dated 25.09.2025 to Minister of Housing and Prohibition and Excise Department. In response Deputy Commissioner of Excise, Chengalpattu has given a reply on 26.09.2025 that action will be taken soon on the above representation. In these circumstances, petitioner filed this writ petition seeking a direction respondents 2 and 3 to relocate and close the TASMAC retail vending shop Nos.4376 and 4087.

4. The above shop has been in existence since 2013 i.e. for almost thirteen years and it is the first time that there is an objection to the location of the TASMAC shop. Location of shop is governed by Rule 8 of the Tamil Nadu Liquor Retail Vending (in Shops and Bars) Rules, 2003 and shifting of shops is governed by Rule 9.

5. From a reading of above provision, it appears that the authority to shift the shop is vested wit the Collector and a representation dated 13.10.2025 has also been made to the Collect

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top