This court disposed of a writ petition filing under Article 226 for mandamus to stop TASMAC establishment in a children's play area. The court observed that the respondents denied any proposal to relocate the shop to the disputed site, noting the petitioner's apprehension was not well-founded.
No further order necessary; writ petition disposed of.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 17.04.2017 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAVICHANDRABAABU W.P.No.9071 of 2017 and WMP No.10002 of 2017
Murugesan
... PETITIONER
Vs
1.The District Collector, Salem. 2.The District Manager, IMFS Depot, TASMAC Ltd., 2/43B-Doctors Colony, Salem 636 005. ... RESPONDENTS
Prayer:-Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of mandamus to forbear the respondents or their men or agents from establishing the TASMAC wine shop or store area of TASMAC goods or TASMAC Bar in the public children play area existing in Survey No.34/1 Part at Ayyothiyapattinam village, Salem District.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Nalliyappan For Respondents: Mr.Akhil Akbar Ali Government Advocate for R1 Mr.B.Nedunchezhiyan for R2 ORDER
This writ petition is filed seeking for a mandamus forbearing the respondents from establishing the TASMAC shop or Tasmac bar in the public children play area situated at Survey No.34/1 Part at Ayyothiyapattinam village, Salem District.
2.The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents are trying to relocate the shop No.7148 after closing the same in compliance with the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and such proposed re-relocation lies within the children park.
3.Learned counsel appearing for the TASMAC today submitted before this court that there is no such proposal to locate such shop in the disputed site and therefore, the apprehension of the petitioner is not well founded. He also produced a copy of the communication sent by the Managing Director of the Tamilnadu State Marketing Corporation Limited dated 12.04.2017, addressed to the learned Advocate General of this court, wherein it is stated as follows:-
“As the Shop No.7148 was situated within 500 meters from the Highway, it was closed and decided to relocate it to a suitable place in compliance with the conditions laid down in the Supreme Court's order and rules framed under the Tamil Nadu Liquor Retail Vending (in shops and Bars) Rules, 2003. The location specified in the Writ Petition, viz., Survey No.34/1, Part at Ayyothiyapattinam, Salem District was not selected and no proposal was sent by the District Manager to the Collector.”
4.Since the respondents have come forwarded to submit before
this court that there is no such proposal as apprehended by the
petitioner, no further order is necessary in this writ petition
except to record the above statement made by the respondents.
The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. The
connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
-s/d-
Assistant Registrar(CSVIII)
True Copy
Sub-Assistant Registrar
vri
To
1.The District Collector,
Salem.
2.The District Manager,
IMFS Depot, TASMAC Ltd.,
2/43B-Doctors Colony,
Salem 636 005.
+1 cc to Mr.B.Nedunchezian Advocate sr 23065
+1 cc to Mr.R.Nalliappan Advocate sr 22976
W.P.No.9071 of 2017
lrs(co)
aa27/04/2017
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the apprehension of the petitioner that the TASMAC shop will be re-located in the children's play area is well-founded.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Murugesan
The District Collector, Salem
The District Manager, IMFS Depot, TASMAC Ltd.
K. Ravichandrababu
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
