IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 11.07 .2017

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM

W.P.No.17507 of 2017 &

W.M.No.19002 of 2017

Vanitha textiles,

Rep. by its Partner, N.Sivakumar,

182, Chettipalayam Road,

Palladam, Tirupur district.

... Petitioner

Vs.

1. The State of Tamil Nadu,

Rep. by its Secretary to Government,

Home, Prohibition and excise Department,

Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.

2. The District Collector,

District Collectorate, Tirupur District.

3. The District Manager,

Tamil Nadu State Marketing

Corporation Limited, TASMAC District Office,

Angeripalayam Road, Tirupur District.

4.K.Subramaniam

... Respondents

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India to issue a WRIT OF MANDAMUS forbearing the respondents

from relocating or establishing a TASMAC liquor shop at

R.S.No.683/1 and R.S.No.683/3 at Avinashipalayam Village,

Pongalur taluk, Tirupur District detrimental to petitioner's

right to life, property, peaceful trade and occupation after

considering the representation of the petitioner dated

30.06.2017.

For Petitioner : Mr.C.E.Pratap

For Respondents : M/s.A.Srijayanthi,

Special Government Pleader

(For R1 & r2)

Mr.M.John Kennedy (For R3)

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

O R D E R

Heard Mr.C.E.Pratap, learned counsel for the petitioner,

M/s.A.Srijayanthi, learned Special Government Pleader for the

respondents 1 and 2 and Mr.M.John Kennedy, learned counsel for

the third respondent.

2.The petitioner is a Textile Mill carrying on business

in the lands comprised in R.S.Nos.683/3 and 683/3D at

Avinashipalayam Village, Pongalur Taluk, Tirupur District in an

extent of 2.21 acres. The grievance of the petitioner is that

the respondent TASMAC is proposing to set up a retail outlet in

the land owned by the fourth respondent, which is a land

adjacent to the petitioners' Textile Mill and it is within the

distance of 250 feet from the National Highway. Apart from

that, the petitioner also states about the objections raised by

the local residents. The petitioner has given a representation

to the respondents on 30.06.2017 which are shown to have been

received by the authorities as per the postal acknowledgment and

in respect of such objections, till date no action has been

initiated by the authorities and effective steps haven taken by

the third respondent to locate the TASMAC shop.

3.In the light of the fact that the petitioner alleges

that the proposed shop is within the prohibited distance from

the National Highway, the objection given by the petitioner

should be considered before approving the location for the

proposed shop.

4.In the light of the same, the writ petition is disposed

of by directing the petitioner to submit a representation to the

second respondent along with a copy of this order within a

period of three days from the date of receipt of a copy of this

order.

On such representation being given, the second

respondent shall consider the same after notice to the fourth

respondent, ascertain as to whether the proposed location

infringes the distance rule or it is in violation of the order

passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and thereafter, pass a

speaking order on merits and in accordance with law within a

period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the

representation. Till such time, the shop in question shall not

be located in the proposed location. No costs. Consequently,

the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

Sd/-

Asst.Registrar (CS IV )

/true copy/

Sub Asst. Registrar

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

abr

To

1. The Secretary to Government,

The State of Tamil Nadu

Home, Prohibition and excise Department,

Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.

2. T