Dismissed

P.K.Mathiazhagan v. The District Collector

Madras HC11 Mar 2019WP/13295/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging the location of a Tasmac liquor shop in Pappampatti village. The petitioner alleged violation of Supreme Court orders and distance rules. The Court found the shop compliant with relevant Rules and Supreme Court orders after reopening and dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

No direction to remove the Tasmac liquor shop No.7125; writ petition dismissed with no costs.

P.K.Mathiazhagan Vs The District Collector — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 11.03.2019

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD W.P.No.13295 of 2017 and W.M.P.No.14297 of 2017

¶5

P.K.Mathiazhagan ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The District Collector
Salem District, Salem.
2. The Managing Director,
Tamilnadu State Marketing Corporation, 4th Floor,
CMDA Tower, Egmore,
Chennai - 600 008.
3. The District Collector,
District TASMAC Office
Salem ... Respondents

¶6

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to remove the existing TASMAC liquor shop No.7125 in the area of the village based on representation of the Pappampatti villagers dated 09.05.2017, the violation of the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India passed in Civil Appeal Nos. 12164 to 12166 of 2016 dated 15.12.2016.

¶7

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Sairaman For Respondents : Mr.Akhil Akbarali, Govt.Advocate for R1

¶8

Mr.K.Sathishkumar, SC for R2 and 3

¶9

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

¶10

O R D E R

¶11

(Order of the Court was made by SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J.)

¶12

The petitioner, a resident of Pappampatti Village (P.O), Omalur Taluk, Salem District, has filed this instant petition for Public Interest praying for a direction to the respondents to remove the existing Tasmac liquor shop No.7125 from the village.

¶13

Petitioner submits that one liquor shop is already functioning outside village Pappampatti. The second respondent has opened one more Tasmac shop No.7125 again, in the village and the same is functioning in a residential area. The villagers had given a representation to close down the shop. Petitioner states that the shop is situated within 200 meters from the State Highway and therefore this is in violation of the judgment dated 15.12.2016 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal Nos.12164 to 12166 of 2016.

¶14

The respondents have filed a counter affidavit along with the map and a sketch. In the counter affidavit, it is stated that the shop is located about 257 metres away from the State Highways No.86. For better understanding the relevant paragraphs in the counter affidavit are reproduced as under:

¶15

This respondent submits that the TASMAC sho No.7125 originally functioned at Door No.5/63, Main Road, Pallampatti Village, Attayampatti, Salem District, in the property owned by Tmt.J.Vasantha and the said shop was located within 6 meters from the State Highways SH-86a. Therefore the shop was closed pursuant to the Hon'ble supreme Court order in Civil Appeal Nos.12164 etc of 2016, dated 15.12.2016. Subsequently the State of Tamil Nadu moved application in I.A before the Hon'ble Supreme Court by its order dated 31.03.2017 held in para 22 modifies the earlier order as follows:

¶16

“ In the case of areas comprised in local bodies with a population of 20,000 people or less, the distance of 500 metres shall stand reduced to 220 metres”

¶17

Pursuant to the Hon'ble Supreme Court order dated 31.03.2017, the shop No.7125 was relocated to survey No.96/7, Nathyampatti, Pappampatti, Omalur, Salem District and functioning with effect from 10.04.2017.

¶18

This respondent submits that as per State Census report 2011, the Pappampatti

¶19

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

¶20

village has population of 10284 and therefore this respondent relocated the shop at Survey No.96/7, which is 257 metres away from the State Highways SH No.86. The said distance was once again surveyed by the Taluk Surveyor on 07.03.2019 and filing the report along with this counter affidavit. Further the present locations has not been violates the Rule 8(1) of the Tamil Nadu Liquor and Retail vending Rules, 2003 and there is no worshipful place or educational institutions situated within 100 metres from the shop.

¶21

This respondent submits that they have sent a proposal to the 1^st respondent in Na.Ka.No.603/2017/A-3/C.V dated 04.04.2017 for relocating the shop in survey No.96/7, in turn the 1^st respondent has passed in Na.Ka.No.10458/2017/Ka2, dated 08.04.2017 and granted permission to open the shop in the present place. Pursuant to the 1^st respondent order the shop was opened and functioning from 10.04.2017 without any hindrance to public and also no visibility from the State Highways.

¶22

This respondent submits that the present location of shop No.7125 not been violated the Rule 8(1) of the Tamil Nadu Liquor Retail vending Rules, 2003 and also fully in compliance of the orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos.12169 of 2016 etc, dated 15.12.2016 and 31.03.2017.

¶23

A perusal of para 5 of the counter affidavit would show that initially the shop was located at some other place and since the shop was situated within the permissible distance laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, there was a proposal to relocate the shop and that the shop has been relocated to the present place where it has been functioning. The respondent would state that the present shop is not in violation of Rule 8 (1) of the Tamil Nadu Liquor Retail Vending Rules, 2003 and also fully in compliance with the orders dated 15.12.2016 and 31.03.2017 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.12169 of 2016. The petitioner has not filed any rejoinder controverting the same.

¶24

In the light of the counter affidavit that is filed by the state Government, we do not find any necessity to interfere with the decision of the second respondent to locate the Tasmac shop No.7125 in S.No.96/7, Nathayampatti, Pappampatti, Omalur, Salem District.

¶25

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

¶26

In view of the above, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶27

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS III)

¶28

//True Copy//

¶29

Sub Assistant Registrar
To
1. The District Collector
Salem District
Salem
2. The Managing Director,
TASMAC,
4th Floor, CMDA Tower,
Egmore, Chennai - 600 008.
3. The District Collector,
District TASMAC office
Salem.
+1cc to Mr.K.Sathish kumar, Advocate Sr.22682
+1cc to the Government Pleader Sr.23125
W.P.No.13295 of 2017 and
W.M.P.No.14297of 2017
sr[co]
srg 23/04/2019

¶30

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

P.K.Mathiazhagan v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.K.Mathiazhagan 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Palani Vs The District Collector

P.Govindaraj Vs The District Collector

P.Rathinam, Advocate Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

L.Jayanthi Vs The Secretary toGovernment

K.Thangamani Vs The District Collector

V.Rajiv Vs The District Collector