Disposed

R.Prithiviraj v. The District Collector

Madras HC11 May 2022WP/12441/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of a writ petition seeking to prevent the relocation of a TASMAC wine shop. The court directed the District Collector to consider the petitioner's representation regarding the shop's relocation and procedural compliance under state liquor vending rules before granting approval.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the District Collector to consider the petitioner's representation dated 25.04.2022 and dispose of the same according to the extant Rules before granting approval.

R.Prithiviraj Vs The District Collector — Consumer Protection | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 11.05.2022

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY

¶5

W.P.No.12441 of 2022 and W.M.P.No.11905 of 2022

¶6

R.Prithiviraj ..Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

1.The District Collector, Salem District, Salem.

¶9

2.The Senior Regional Manager, TASMAC Ltd.,

¶10

No.56, Brindavan Road, Fairlands, Salem District, Salem – 636 016.

¶11

3.The District Manager,

¶12

TASMAC Ltd., 87/5, Santhiyur,

¶13

S.Attayampatti Village, Salem District – 636 203. ..Respondents

¶14

PRAYER: This Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the respondents from establishing a wine shop in Survey No.98/5A, Moolakadai, Panagadu via, Pappampadi Village, Omalur Taluk, Salem District by way of relocation.

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.N.Kolandaivelu For Respondents: Mr.C.Jayaprakash

¶16

Government Advocate for R1

¶17

Mr.K.Sathish Kumar

¶18

Standing Counsel for R2 & R3

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The petitioner seeks a direction to prevent the respondents from establishing a wine shop at the location specified in the petition.

¶21

The petitioner asserts that there are three wine shops in the relevant village. According to the petitioner, the proposed wine shop is within a distance of 72 metres from a https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ temple. It is also alleged that it is 150 metres from the

¶22

National Highways. In spite of submitting a representation on 25.04.2022, it is stated that no action was taken thereon.

¶23

Mr.C.Jayapraksh, learned Government Advocate, accepts notice for the 1^st respondent and Mr.K.Sathish Kumar, learned Standing Counsel, accepts notice for the respondents 2 and 3.

¶24

On instructions, they submit that the amended Tamil Nadu Liquor Retail Vending (in Shops and Bars) Rules 2003, mandate that objections to the establishment of a wine shop should be considered and disposed of before approval is granted for the establishment of the shop. Therefore, they state that the petitioner is fully protected.

¶25

Accordingly, W.P.No.12441 of 2022 is disposed of by directing the first respondent to consider the representation, dated 25.04.2022, in accordance with the extant Rules and dispose of the same before granting approval including for relocation of the proposed shop. No costs. Connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶26

Sd/-

¶27

Assistant Registrar(v.o)

¶28

//True Copy//

¶29

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶30

Pns/Dua

¶31

To 1.The District Collector, Salem District, Salem.

¶32

2.The Senior Regional Manager, TASMAC Ltd., No.56, Brindavan Road, Fairlands, Salem District, Salem – 636 016.

¶33

3.The District Manager, TASMAC Ltd., 87/5, Santhiyur, S.Attayampatti Village, Salem District – 636 203.

¶34

+1 cc to Mr.N.Kolandaivelu, Advocate Sr.NO. 31377 +1 cc to Government Pleader Sr.NO. 31475

¶35

W.P.No.12441 of 2022 RR(CO) A.SK(16/05/2022)

¶36

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

R.Prithiviraj v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Prithiviraj 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ansari Estate Pvt.Ltd Vs Mahadevan

Mahalearning Education Private Limited Vs M/s.Mahalearning Tab India and 7 others

Grr Logistics Pvt. Ltd. Vs Starr Property and Casualty Insurance Co., Ltd. and 3 others

Harikrishnan Vs The District Collector

Chitra Vs The District Collector

Mr.M.Elumalai, Vs The Districtd Manager Tahdco