Petitioner challenged the opening of a TASMAC liquor shop and bar. Court dismissed the writ, noting interference is unwarranted absent specific allegations of statutory rule contravention.
The writ petition was disposed of. No costs awarded.
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
DATE: 01.07.2019
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR
W.P.No.18164 of 2019 & W.M.P.No.17529 of 2019
K.Saravanan ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The District Collector Office of the District Collector Singaravelar Maligai Chennai – 600 001
Writ petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for issuance of writ of mandamus forbearing the respondents from opening a TASMAC retail liquor shop along with a bar at Plot No.A-16, Church Road, Mogappair Industrial Estate, Mogappair East, Chennai – 600 037. For Petitioner : Ms.R.Shase For Respondents : Mr.R.P.Pratap Singh Government Advocate for R1
Mr.M.Swarna Geetham for Mr.N.Damodaran Standing Counsel (TASMAC) for R2 and R3
O R D E R
This writ petition pertains to opening of a retail liquor outlet by 'Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation' ('TASMAC' for brevity).
2. Writ petitioner, stating that he is a resident of the locality where the TASMAC shop is proposed to be opened, has filed the instant writ petition with a prayer to restrain the respondents from opening the liquor shop at Plot No.A-16, Church Road, Mogappair Industrial Estate, Mogappair East, Chennai – 600 037 ('said location' for brevity).
3. Ms.R.Shase, learned counsel for writ petitioner submits that said location is in a congested area. Learned counsel also submits that there are already many liquor shop run by TASMAC in the said area. In the synopsis filed by the writ petitioner, which forms part of the case file, learned counsel submits that there are already 5 TASMAC liquor shops with attached bars in the area.
4. Mr.R.P.Pratap Singh, learned Government Advocate accepts notice on behalf of first respondent.
5. Learned State counsel submits that location of the liquor vending shops i.e., retail outlets of TASMAC are governed by 'The Tamil Nadu Liquor Retail Vending (in shops and bars) Rules, 2003' ('Liquor Vending Rules' for brevity).
6.Though in the hearing, learned counsel submits that the proposed liquor vending shop is objectionable within the meaning of Rule 8 of Liquor Vending Rules, no data or details as to how and why it is objectionable has been given. In other words, there is no plea with specificity in this regard.
7.Suffice to say that said location has to be in accordance with the aforesaid Liquor Vending Rules and suffice to say that it should not be in violation of said liquor vending rules.
8.In this regard, a judgment being Hon'ble Division Bench judment dated 13.06.2017 in W.P.No.14466 of 2017 is of relevance. Paragraph 6 of the same reads as follows: '6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has cited a Division Bench judgment of this Court in V.Ravichandran v. The District Collector, Tirunelveli and another (Order dated 16.11.2016 in W.P. (MD) No.20063 of 2015). This judgment was rendered
having regard to the particular facts of the case. The judgment is not an authority for the proposition that a liquor shop can in no circumstances be set up if there is an objection from the residents or a resolution of Panchayat Grama Sabha to that effect.'
9. It is also to be noted that in aforesaid judgment of Hon'ble Division Bench it was held that in the absence of any allegation of contravention of any statutory rule or regulation, interference of writ Court is not warranted. This is articulated in Paragraph 2 of Hon'ble Division Bench judgment, which reads as follows:
'2. On the face of the averments in the writ petition, the petitioner has not been able to show infringements of any provision of law in running the liquor shop in the village of the petitioner. In the absence of any allegation of contravention of any statutory rule or regulation, interference of writ court is not warranted.'
(Underlining made by Court to supply emphasis and highlight )
10. In the light of the narrative thus far, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition with the observation that as long as the location is in accordance with the aforesaid Liquor Vending Rules and not in breach of limitations therein, it does not warrant interference. This is writ petition is disposed of with the above observation. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS-IX)
//True copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
gpa
To
Chennai – 600 001
+1cc to Mr.M.Guruprasad, Advocate SR.No.55086
W.P.No.18164 of 2019 & W.M.P.No.17529 of 2019
GP(CO) GMY(20/08/2019)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the opening of a TASMAC retail liquor shop in a congested area.
Whether the petitioner has demonstrated a contravention of statutory rules to warrant writ court interference.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Hon'ble Division BenchReferred¶21
W.P.No.14466 of 2017
V Ravichandran v. The District Collector, TirunelveliReferred¶21
V.Ravichandran v. The District Collector, Tirunelveli and another
2 provisions across 2 enactments
K Saravanan
District Collector Office of the District Collector Singaravelar Maligai
Managing Director TASMAC Limited
District Manager TASMAC Thiruvallur East District
M Sundar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
