Disposed

G.Iyappan, v. the Chairman

Madras HC14 Oct 2019WP(MD)/19855/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court disposed of a writ petition filed to direct the closure or shifting of a TASMAC wine shop near the Sivakasi bus stand. The court ordered TASMAC to take a pragmatic decision to relocate the shop and directed that no bar permission be granted attached to the disputed shop.

What did the court decide?

Direction that TASMAC must take a pragmatic decision to close or relocate the liquor shop and that no permission be granted to establish a bar at Shop No.11840.

G.Iyappan, Vs the Chairman — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

W.P.(PD)(MD)No.19855 of 2017

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 14.10.2019

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY

¶6

W.P.(PD)(MD)No.19855 of 2017 and W.M.P.(MD)No.16135 of 2017

G.Iyappan

...Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Chairman, Prohibition and Excise, Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Limited,

¶11

Chennai.

¶12

2.The Commissioner and Secretary, Prohibition and Excise Department,

¶13

Secretariat, Chennai.

¶14

3.The Collector, Prohibition and Excise, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar.

¶15

4.The Deputy Commissioner, Prohibition and Excise,

¶16

Virudhunagar District.

¶17

5.The Assistant Commissioner,

¶18

Prohibition and Excise, Virudhunagar District.

¶19

6.The District Manager, Prohibition and Excise, TASMAC Division, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar. ...Respondents

¶20

PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to close the TASMAC Wine shop No.11840, functioning at Sattur to Kalugumalai State High Way No.187 and at nearer to Sivakasi bus stand or shifted to some other place thereon.

¶21

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

¶22

1/3

¶23

W.P.(PD)(MD)No.19855 of 2017

¶24

For Petitioner : Mr.V.R.G.Mohan For R1 and R3 : Mr.A.K.Baskara Pandian Special Government Pleader

¶25

For R2, R4 to R6 : Mr.H.Arumugam Standing counsel

¶26

COMMON ORDER

¶27

[Order of this Court was made by T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.]

¶28

Heard Mr.V.R.G.Mohan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.A.K.Baskara Pandian, learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents 1 and 3 and Mr.H.Arumugam, learned standing counsel for the respondents 2 and 4 to 6.

¶29

This writ petition has been filed to close down the TASMAC retail vending shop situated at Sattur to Kalugumalai State High Way No.187 and at nearer to Sivakasi bus stand.

¶30

During the pendency of the writ petition, an Advocate Commissioner was appointed to inspect the site in question an he has submitted that the shop is situated next to the Sivakasi Bus stand. Though it does not violate the Distance Rule, still bearing the public interest in mind, the TASMAC should take a pragmatic decision. The bar license was cancelled, since the amount was not remitted.

¶31

Considering the location, we are of the view that the bar should not be established in the shop because, the shop is situated very next to the Sivakasi Bus stand. Therefore, there may be a direction to the TASMAC not to grant any permission for establishment of bar attached to Shop No.11840. So far as shifting of shop is concerned, there was an allegation that the writ petitioner was sponsored by FL2 Licensee. Taking note of this submission, we directed that an inspection to be conducted by the Assistant Commissioner (Excise), Virudhunagar, who has conducted an inspection and submitted a report stating that there is no violation committed by the FL2 licensee.

¶32

Be that as it may, the respondent, TASMAC being a State owned Corporation should ensure that their business activities should not disturb the normal public. Considering the location of the liquor shop as a hindrance, we direct that a pragmatic decision to be taken in this regard as to whether the shop can be relocated in some other place.

¶33

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

¶34

2/3

¶35

W.P.(PD)(MD)No.19855 of 2017

¶36

With the above, direction, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶37

Sd/Assistant Registrar (CS-II) // True Copy // Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶38

ta To 1.The Chairman, Prohibition and Excise, Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Limited, Chennai. 2.The Collector, Prohibition and Excise, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar. +1 CC to M/s.H.ARUMUGAM, Advocate ( SR-91878[F] dated 15/10/2019 ) +1 CC to M/s.GP ( SR-91924[F] dated 15/10/2019 )

¶39

ORDER MADE IN W.P.(PD)(MD)No.19855 of 2017 14.10.2019

¶40

JMN(24.10.2019) 3P : 5C

¶41

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

¶42

3/3

G.Iyappan, v. the Chairman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Iyappan, v. the Chairman

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

M. Selvakumar Vs the Inspector General of

The Registrar (Judicial), Vs the District Collector

The Director of Elementary Education Vs Fathima Jeyarani

J.Renuka Vs the District Revenue Officer

Abdullah Vs State of Tamilnadu

S.Senthil Kumar Vs The District Collector