Dismissed

S.Murugesan v. The District Collector

Madras HC16 Apr 2021WP/3573/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment dismisses a writ petition filed by S. Murugesan challenging an order refusing to open a TASMAC shop. The Court held the petitioner lacked locus standi as he was different from the party in the prior appeal. It also found no grounds to interfere with the Collector's order denying the license due to law-and-order concerns.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed with no costs.

S.Murugesan Vs The District Collector — Consumer Protection | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 16.04.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH

¶5

Writ Petition No.3573 of 2021 and WMP No.4071 of 2021

¶6

S.Murugesan

¶7

.... Petitioner Vs 1. The District Collector, Collectorate, Chengalpattu, Chengalpattu District.

¶8

The District Manager, The Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd., (TASMAC), Kancheepuram (North), Industrial Estate, Thirumazhisai, Kancheepuram District – 600 123.

¶9

The Assistant Commissioner of Excise, Chengalpattu, Chengalpattu District Collectorate, Chengalpattu District.

¶10

Shri Kanbavvi WelfareAssociation, rep. By its Secretary, Plot No.15, 1^st Street, Shri Krishna Nagar, Perumbakkam, Chennai – 600 100.

¶11

....Respondents

¶12

Prayer: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the order of the 1^st respondent dated 23.01.2021 in Na.Ka.183/2020/Vi.1, and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 3 to open the TASMAC Wine Shop No.4139 in Survey No.17/3, Anandammal Nagar, Perumbakkam, Chennai – 600 100.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Selvaraj

¶14

For Respondent : Mr.R.P.Prathap Singh Government Advocate – R1 Mr.P.Arumugarajan, Standing Counsel – R2 & R3 Mr.R.S.Krishnasamy - R4

¶15

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

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

Heard Mr.K.Selvaraj, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.R.P.Prathap Singh, learned Government Advocate for R1, Mr.P.Arumugarajan, learned Standing Counsel for R2 and R3 and Mr.R.S.Krishnasamy, learned counsel for R4.

¶18

The petitioner has prayed for an order of certiorarified mandamus calling for and quashing order dated 23.01.2021 and consequently directing the Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd. (TASMAC) to open Wine Shop No.4139 in Survey No.17/3, Anandammal Nagar, Perumbakkam, Chennai – 600 100 (shop/shop in question).

¶19

There is a background in this Writ Petition. The 4^th respondent in this Writ Petition, which is Shri Kanbavvi WelfareAssociation (Association), had filed a Writ Petition in W.P.No.18699 of 2017, wherein the State as well as the TASMAC authorities were arrayed as respondents. A private respondent in the name of P.Murugesan was arrayed as R5, who is the owner of the property housing the TASMAC shop in question. The shop had been originally opened on 03.07.2017 in another premises and had been re-located in the existing premises on account of the orders passed by the Supreme Court in a batch of cases. The Association had argued that it was located in an exclusively residential area within the prohibited distance from temple and school and hence the TASMAC should be directed to shift the shop elsewhere.

¶20

By order dated 24.07.2017, a learned single Judge, on the ground that representations seeking the same relief as sought in the Writ Petition were pending before the District Collector, had directed the District Collector to consider and dispose the pending representations, after conducting an inspection in the area to verify adherence to the Rules, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of that order. The said order was carried in Writ Appeal by R5 in the Writ Petition, in W.A.No.1215 of 2017.

¶21

The grievance putforth by the individual in the Writ Appeal was that the Writ Petition had been disposed without a notice being issued to him. After hearing the parties, by order dated 22.09.2017, directions were issued to the District Collector, as directed by the learned single Judge, to consider and dispose the representations filed by the Association; if necessary to cause a surprise inspection in the premises; the District Collector would generate a report of the inspection to be furnished to the appellant as well as the Association and the aggrieved party would file objections; the District Collector

¶22

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

¶23

will issue notice to the parties and hear them and thereafter pass an order, that may be assailed by the aggrieved party, if desired, in accordance with law. A time frame of four weeks was fixed for completion of the exercise as aforesaid.

¶24

It is as against the order of the District Collector dated 23.01.2021 passed in compliance with the directions of the Court in Writ Appeal, that the present Writ Petition has been filed.

¶25

The petitioner in this Writ Petition is S.Murugesan and R5 in W.P.No.18699 of 2017/appellant in W.A.No.1215 of 2017 is P.Murugesan. To be noted that for a considerable length of time, learned counsel for the petitioner proceeded on the basis that the petitioner in this Writ Petition and the appellant in the aforesaid Writ Appeal were one and the same. Initiatlly the discrepancy in the initials of the two individuals was not noted. Therefore, it came to the notice of the Court that the present Writ Petition was filed by S.Murugesan, whereas the Writ Appeal has been filed by P.Murugesan, two different individuals.

¶26

The attempt of the petitioner was to urge that the directions of the Division Bench had not been complied with and no opportunity had been granted to the appellant, as specifically directed by the Division Bench. In doing so, the impression given was that the petitioner and the appellant were one and the same.

¶27

However, the petitioner, being only a licencee selling snacks and collecting empty bottles and not the appellant in the Writ Appeal, has no locus standii whatsoever to file the present Writ Petition. In fact, the attempt made to pass off the present Writ Petitioner as an appellant in the Writ Appeal would itself indicate that the petitioner is not being fair in its representation before the Court.

¶28

Be that as it may, it appears that an inspection was caused and notice was issued to the petitioner who was heard by the District Collector and orders passed on 23.01.2021. Both the counter as well as the impugned order make it clear that there has been proper application of mind by the authorities in arriving at the decision that the present premises is not suitable for opening of the TASMAC shop in question.

¶29

There have been a series of law and order issues in that area and on 14.10.2019 after an altercation between customers in that shop, there was a double murder in that vicinity. The surprise inspection report conducted on 31.10.2020 shows that there are two schools at a distance of 980 meters and 450 meters from the shop, residential buldings, both

¶30

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

¶31

to its west and south, at a distance of 300 meters. There is another TASMAC shop at a distance of 1500 meters from the present shop.

¶32

Though the Assistant Commissioner, Excise had recommended the running of the shop, the District Collector, upon taking note of all the necessary materials including the inspection report of the Assistant Commissioner, has decided not to open the shop in question at the present location. The translated version of the impugned order dated 23.01.2021 is extracted below:

¶33

The TASMAC Shop No.4139 which was running at Valacherry Main Road, Tambaram Taluk, Chengalpattu District was Ordered to shift to the building measuring 220Sqft of thiru Mugugesan at Survey No.17/33, 17/4B, Anandammal Nagar in the area Krishna Nagar Perumbakkam Village, Tambaram Taluk, Chengalpattu District as per the Proceedings of the District Collecotr, Kancheepuram cited in the above reference No.1.

¶34

The above location of Anandammal Nagar in Krishna Nagar where the permission was granted to TASMAC Shop is the heavy populated place where the more drinkers have thier movements as there is provision for drinnking. The TASMAC Shop was running without any objections since the date started running. But, on 14.10.2019 there was a double murder took place near the TASMAC Shop for which the main cause is the drunk people clash each others. The Residents and the public got panic and on behalf of the public grievances there, Sri Kanbhavi welfare Association filed WP. No.18699/2017 in the Hon'be High Court of Madras and in its order it was directed to pass order within two weeks after considering the petitions of the Writ petitioner dated 27.06.2017 and 06.07.2017.

¶35

On the above Order Thiru.Murugesan filed a Appeal in the Hon'ble High Court vide WA. No.1215/2017 and in its Order dated 24.07.2017 and 22.09.2017, it was directed that The District Collector to conduct Inspection or Surprise Inspection finding whether the said place is suitable to run the TASMAC Shop and to conduct enquiry with Thiru.Murugesan and Sri Kanbhavi welfare Association and file the report based on the Inspection and Enquiry conducted. The Revenue Department and Police Officials have jointly conducted the Inspeciton as per the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras cited in the above reference No.2.

¶36

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

¶37

By this way, as per the Letter dated 19.01.2021 of the Inspector of Police, Perumbakkam cited in the above reference No.9 cited, it was stated that the accused 1.Veeraragavan, 2. Velu 3.Ramesh have killed Steefan and Anandraj during clash with them on consumption of liquor on 14.01.2019 at 10.30 PM near the TASMAC Shop No.4139 and the case Cr.No.965/2019 U/s302 IPC (Double Murder) filed in pending in Alandur Court. Further the Law & Order Inspector has stated, if the Shop continues to run in the same place, the public will be facing fear and panic.

¶38

Further the Revenue Divisional Officer on his inspection dated 18.01.2021 report staed that said TASMAC Shop may not be permitted to open again as there will be law and Ordr issues besides the fear of the public.

¶39

According to the directions of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras and for the welfare of the Public, Based on RDO, Tambaram and L & O Inspector, Perumbakkam reports, it is orderd to stop funcitioning and permanently close the TASMAC Shop No.4139 along with running Bar in Survey No.17/3, 17/4B, Krishnan Nagar, Medavakkam Main Road, Perumbakkam Village, Tambaram Taluk, Chengalpattu District.

¶40

Sd/District Collector, Chengalpattu.

¶41

To 1. District Manager, Kancheepuram (North) District, TASMAC Ltd.

¶42

Sri Kanbhavi Welfare Association, Perumbakkam.

¶43

Thiru.Murugesan, S/o Selvaraj,

¶44

No.14, Jothi Nagar, Madambakkam, Tambaram Taluk.

¶45

(VAO, Perumbakkam to dispatch to Sl. No.2 & 3

¶46

persons and feedback to this office)

¶47

Copy to:

¶48

Superintendent of Police, Chengalpattu.

¶49

Revenue Divisional Officer, Tambaram

¶50

Inspector of Police, Perumbakkam

¶51

R P Prathap Singh, Govt. Advocate, Law Officer's Block, High Court Chennai

¶52

Tahsildar, Tambaram

¶53

Village Administrative Officer, Perumbakkam Village.

¶54

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

¶55

The order for speaks itself and I find no justification whatsoever to interfere with the same. This Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs. Connected Miscellaneous Petition is also dismissed.

¶56

s/d-
Assistant Registrar
True Copy
Sub-Assistant Registrar
sl
To
1. The District Collector,
Collectorate, Chengalpattu, Chengalpattu District.
2. The District Manager,
The Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd.,
(TASMAC),
Kancheepuram (North), Industrial Estate,
Thirumazhisai, Kancheepuram District – 600 123.
3. The Assistant Commissioner of Excise,
Chengalpattu, Chengalpattu District Collectorate,
Chengalpattu District.
+1 CC to The Government Pleader sr 23392.
+1 CC to Mr.R.S. Krishnasamy, Advocate sr 23436.
+1 CC to Mr.K. Selvaraj, Advocate sr 23316.
Writ Petition No.3573 of 2021
and WMP No.4071 of 2021
PVS(CO)
SP(30/06/2021)

¶57

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

S.Murugesan v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Murugesan 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S.R.S Travels Vs The State Tax officer

M/s.Game Shopee Vs The Commercial Tax officer

A.A.510 Kurumandur Primary Agricultural Vs The Commissioner of Income Tax

Uber India systems Private Limited, Vs Union of India

G.Balasubramanian Vs The District Collector

Tvl.Arul Medicals Vs The Deputy State Tax officer