Petitioner challenged a relocated TASMAC shop in Thiruvarur, citing proximity to a pond and lack of authorities' prior knowledge. The Court found the District Collector applied mind and no rights were violated. Without proof of agricultural land usage, the petition was dismissed.
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: 14.03.2019 CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD
WP.No.6828 of 2019 and WMP No.7603 of 2019
T.Minor ... Petitioner
vs. 1. The District Collector, Thiruvarur District, Thiruvarur.
WRIT Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to close down the TASMAC shop located on the side of Vannankulam Pond in Vaduvoor Pattukkottai Village, Vaduvoor Post, Needamangalam Taluk, Thiruvarur District based on the representation submitted by the petitioner dated 6.12.2018.
For Petitioner : Mr.G.Sankaran
For Respondents: Mr.Akhil Akbarali (for R1, R2 & R4) Government Advocate Mr.N.Damodaran (for R3) Standing counsel
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J) The petitioner, a permanent resident of Vaduvoor-Pudukkottai Village, Needamangalam Taluk, Thiruvarur District, has filed this public interest litigation with a prayer to close down the TASMAC shop located on the side of Vannankulam Pond in Vaduvoor
Pattukkottai Village, Vaduvoor Post, Needamangalam Taluk, Thiruvarur District, based on his representation dated 06.12.2018.
2. According to the petitioner, Vaduvoor Pattukkottai Village is located on the side of Pudukkottai-Kattakudi main road/highways road. The village is comprised of agriculturists and agricultural coolies. Originally, TASMAC shop was located in the village, but it was removed on the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 15.12.2016 and 31.03.2017 made in Civil Appeal Nos.12164-12166 of 2016. Subsequently, it has been located on the side of Vannankulam Pond in Vaduvoor Pattukkottai Village, Vaduvoor Post, Needamangalam Taluk, Thiruvarur District.
3. The petitioner challenges the relocated shop on the ground that the said place is amidst residential area and is covered by agricultural / cultivating lands. It is also contended that the entire village is against the opening of the shop and the Panchayat has passed a resolution opposing the opening of the shop at that place. The petitioner also states that it is very near to a pond and opening of the shop would cause nuisance in the area.
4. It is pertinent to mention here that apart from the representation and objection, no other material has been filed to substantiate the contentions made in the writ petition.
5. Mr.N.Damodaran, learned standing counsel for TASMAC has produced the files. A reading of the file would show that a proposal was made by the District Manager, TASMAC, Tiruvarur District to the District Collector, Tiruvarur with a check list.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the averments made in the writ petition.
8. On a perusal of the file, we find that a proposal has been sent by the District Manager, TASMAC, Tiruvarur District to the District Collector, Tiruvarur with the check list, which reads as under.
Sl.N Particular Remarks
o.
| Sl.N o. |
Particular | Remarks |
|---|---|---|
| 2 | If yes, Officer, who inspected |
District Manager, TASMAC, Tiruvarur |
| 3 | Date of Inspection | 11.10.2018 |
| 4 | Time of Inspection | 04.00 PM |
| 5 | Address of the newly proposed / selected shop |
Keezh Theru, Pudukottai, Vadoovur, Needamangalam |
| 6 | whether construction of new shop has been over |
Yes |
| 7 | If yes, type of building | RCC Building |
| 8 | Area of the building | Length: 16 ft. Breadth: 13 ft. |
| Area: 208 sq.ft | ||
| 9 | Whether there is road facility for transportation of liquor by Lorry |
Road facility available |
| 10 | Whether the building has electricity supply connection |
Yes |
| 11 | Whether Iron shutter is | Yes |
| provided in the building | ||
| 12 | Whether the shop is situated in a safe area |
Yes |
| 13 | Building is situated at Village / city |
village |
| 14 | Whether there is any place of worship or school within 100 mtrs distance as per the Government Norms |
No. (There is no place of worship or school within 100 mtrs distance. |
| 15 | Owner of the building | Mr.T.Manimaran S/o.Thangarasu |
| 16 | Whether consent letter has been obtained from the owner of the building |
Yes. Enclosed. |
| Whether copies of the fol submitted. |
lowing documents |
Sl.N Particular Remarks
o.
17 Consent letter of the Enclosed.
owner of the building
18 Copy of Sale Deed Enclosed.
19 Copy of Village Records Enclosed.
20 Inspection report Enclosed.
21 Tax Receipt Enclosed.
22 Remarks Shop No.9733 at
Elmelaiyur has been
closed on the
objections of the
public on
26.07.2018. Hence,
the said shop has to
be shifted to the
newly proposed place
and it is as per the
government
guidelines.
Therefore, I
recommend to shift
Shop No.9733 to the
newly proposed
location.
9. A Perusal of the check list and the file would make it clear that the District Collector has applied his mind as to whether there is any restriction in opening of the TASMAC shop.
“8. Location of shop:- (1) No shop shall be established in Municipal Corporations and Municipalities within a distance of 50 (fifty) metres and in other areas 100 (hundred) metres from any place of worship or educational institutions: Provided that the distance restriction shall not apply in areas designated as “ Commercial” or “ Industrial” by the Development or Town Planning Authorities:
Provided further that no shop shall be established within the premises of any hotel:
Provided also that if any place of worship, educational institution comes into existence subsequent to the establishment of the shop, the
provisions of this rule shall not apply: Provided also that no liquor shops shall be established in any tribal areas covered under Integrated Tribal Development Project and Hill Area Development Project in the Hill area of Vellore, Salem, Namakkal, Dindigul, Tirunelveli and Kanniyakumari districts.
(2) Every shop shall be housed in a pucka building and no part of the shops shall be thatched either on the sides or on the roof.
(3)The shop shall be in the location approved by the Collector before commencing the business in the shops.
+1cc to Mr.G.Sankaran, Advocate sr.no.24995 +1cc to Mr.N.Damodaran, Advocate sr.no.24074
+1cc to Government Pleader sr.no.24659
WP.No.6828 of 2019 and WMP No.7603 of 2019
spd(co) nr 09/04/2019
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should direct the closure of a relocated TASMAC shop based on petitioner's objections regarding location and agricultural land status.
Whether the Rule 8 requirements of Tamil Nadu Liquor Retail Vending Rules, 2003 regarding distance from places of worship or schools were violated.
Whether the petitioner's contentions that the shop is on agricultural land are substantiated by material on record.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Civil Appeal Nos.12164-12166 of 2016Referred¶17
T. Minor
District Collector, Thiruvarur District
Superintendent of Police, Thiruvarur District
District Manager, Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation (TASMAC), Thiruvarur District
Tahsildar, Needamangalam Taluk
S. Manikumar
Subramonium Prasad
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
