Disposed

P.Ganaprakash, v. the District Collector

Madras HC6 Mar 2014WP(MD)/1263/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging the location of a TASMAC shop and bar. The Court held that running the bar in a thatched superstructure violated statutory rules but permitted operations only after the respondent undertook to erect a pucca structure.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted interim relief restraining the fourth respondent from running the bar in the superstructure until a pucca building is erected; tribunal empowered to inspect and grant permission upo

P.Ganaprakash, Vs the District Collector — Madras HC (2014) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 06.03.2014

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAVICHANDRABAABU

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.1263 of 2014 & M.P(MD)No.1 of 2014

¶7

P.Ganaprakash : Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1.The District Collector, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli.

¶10

2.The Managing Director, TASMAC Ltd., IV Floor, C.M.D.A.Tower II, Egmore, Chennai.

¶11

3.The District Manager, TASMAC Ltd., IMFS Depot, TASCO Building, Ambasamudram Road, No.21, Keela Munnerpallam, Tirunelveli.

¶12

4.T.Karuppiah ...Respondents (R4 impleaded vide order dated 17.02.204 in M.P(MD)No.2 of 2014)

¶13

PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondent to transfer the TASMAC Retail Shop No.10887 along with bar situated at North Car Street, First Ward of Puliangudi, Tirunelveli District.

¶14

For Petitioner :Mr.S.Chellapandian For Respondents :Mr.G.Muthukkanan Govt. Advocate for R1. :Mr.M.Muniasamy Standing Counsel for R2 and R3 :Mr.T.Pon Ramkumar for R4

¶15

ORDER

¶16

The petitioner seeks for a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to transfer the TASMAC Retail Shop No.10887 along with bar situated at North Car Street, First Ward of Puliangudi, Tirunelveli District. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶17

¶18

The case of the petitioner is as follows:

¶19

The petitioner is residing at the next door of the TASMAC Retail Shop No.10887, now situated, at North Car Street, First Ward of Puliangudi, Tirunelveli District. The Shop and Bar are not located in a pucca building as required under Rule 10(3) of the Tamil Nadu Liquor Retail Vending(In Shops and Bars) Rules, 2003. Therefore, it has to be shifted to some other place. Though the petitioner has raised certain grounds complaining that the location of the shop is in violation of the distance Rules, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner fairly submitted that he is given up the above said ground in view of the fact that the shop is not located in violation of distance Rules and the said fact has come to the knowledge of the petitioner subsequent to the filing of the writ petition. However, his grievance is that the location of the Bar in a thatched structure is in violation of Rule 10(3) of the said Rules and therefore it has to be shifted to some other place.

¶20

The third respondent filed a counter affidavit wherein it is stated that the present location of the shop is made pursuant to the inspection conducted by the officials and no Rules are violated while locating the said liquor shop. The fourth respondent also filed a counter affidavit in similar lines. The fourth respondent has specifically denied that the location of the shop is not in violation of the distance Rules.

¶21

The learned Counsel for the fourth respondent while making the submissions, has stated that the shop is now located in a semi permanent structure and therefore, he has sought for the permission to put up a pucca construction in the said place, for which, the District Manager of TASMAC Ltd., Tirunelveli, through the proceedings dated 08.01.2014 granted permission to the petitioner to put up a pucca construction. Thus, he submitted that he has made a necessary application before the local authority seeking planning permission and the construction will be put up within a short period of one week.

¶22

I have heard the learned Counsel appearing on either side and also considered their respective grievance and also perused the materials available on record.

¶23

The only grievance of the petitioner is that the Bar under dispute is presently located in a superstructure which is not in accordance with the requirements contemplated under the 10(3) of the Tamil Nadu Liquor Retail Vending(In Shops and Bars) Rules, 2003.

¶24

A perusal of the said Rule would show that every Bar should be run in a pucca building and no part of the Bar should be thatched over or under roof. Admittedly, in this case, the Bar is not located in a pucca building. It is also admitted by the fourth respondent that he is in the process of putting up the pucca construction to locate the Bar at the present place.

¶25

Therefore, in my considered view, running of the Bar in the present superstructure as exist now, is not permissible as per the Rule 10(3) of the Tamil Nadu Liquor Retail Vending(In Shops and Bars) Rules, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2003. In any event, the fourth respondent undertakes to put up a pucca construction within a period of one week. Therefore, till such

¶26

¶27

construction is put up, the Bar cannot be run by the fourth respondent in the superstructure as existed now. Accordingly, the following order is passed:-

¶28

i) The fourth respondent shall not run the Bar in respect of the TASMAC Shop No.10887 situated in at North Car Street, First Ward of Puliangudi, Tirunelveli District, till, a pucca building is put up by him in the existing place;

¶29

ii)As and when the fourth respondent puts up the pucca building for locating the Bar, the third respondent shall make an inspection and ascertain as to whether the pucca building as contemplated under Section 10(3) has been put up by the fourth respondent and thereafter, permit him to run the Bar.

¶30

With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.

¶31

Gsr

¶32

Sd/-

¶33

Assistant Registrar[Crl side]

¶34

/True copy/

¶35

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶36

¶37

1.The District Collector, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli.

¶38

2.The Managing Director, TASMAC Ltd.,

¶39

IVth Floor, C.M.D.A.Tower II, Egmore, Chennai.

¶40

3.The District Manager,

¶41

TASMAC Ltd., IMFS Depot, TASCO Building,

¶42

Ambasamudram Road, No.21, Keela Munnerpallam, Tirunelveli.

¶43

+1cc to Mr.S.Chellapandian, Advocate SR.No.14142.

¶44

+1cc to Mr.T.Pon Ramkumar, Advocate SR.No.14148.

¶45

W.P(MD)No.1263 of 2014

¶46

Dated:06.03.2014

¶47

3P/6C RPB 21.03.2014

¶48

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

P.Ganaprakash, v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Ganaprakash, v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

U.Amirtham, Vs the Joint Director of School

S. Sam Josephraj Vs the Senior Regional Manager

Sivakumar Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

M/S. Amirtha Group of Vs the Assistant Provident

Ex.Hav.D. Seeni Vs the Assistant Record Officer

T. Muthuveerappan Vs the Secretary to Government