Disposed

Karthikeyan .T v. The State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC15 Jun 2022WP(MD)/10820/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench disposed of a writ petition challenging the decision to shift a wine shop to agricultural land. The court directed the petitioner to approach the District Collector to formally object to the proposed location change rather than seeking judicial intervention directly.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is disposed of; the petitioner is directed to approach the District Collector to register objections regarding the proposed shift of the wine shop.

Karthikeyan .T Vs The State of Tamil Nadu — Madras HC (2022) — LawSathi Research

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.10820 of 2022

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 15.06.2022 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR W.P.(MD)No.10820 of 2022 and WMP(MD) No.7787 of 2022

T.Karthikeyan

.. Petitioner

1.The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. through the Principal Secretary, Secretariat, St.George Fort, Chennai- 9.

¶7

The District Collector Theni District

¶8

The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation(TASMAC) CMDA Tower- II, IV Floor, Gandhi Irwin Bridge Road, Egmore, Chennai- 600 008.

¶9

The District Manager, Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation(TASMAC) Theni District

¶10

The Tahsildar Andipatti Taluk Theni District .. Respondents

¶11

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the impugned order passed by the 4th respondent in Na.Ka.No.266/2020/A4 dated 31.03.2022 and quash the same as illegal and thereby restraining the 4th respondent permanently from setting up a wine shop in agricultural lands bearing Survey No.170/3B situated in Kanniyapapillaipatti, Andipatti Taluk, Theni District

¶12

For Petitioner : Ms.S. Devasena For Respondents : Mr.P.Subburaj No.1,2 and 5 : Special Government Pleader Nos.3 and 4 : Mr.Jameel Arasu Standing counsel

¶13

ORDER

¶14

This Writ Petition has been filed to call for the records of the impugned order passed by the 4th respondent in Na.Ka.No.266/2020/A4 dated 31.03.2022 and quash the same and further https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ restrain the 4th respondent permanently from setting up a wine shop

¶15

1/3

¶16

W.P.(MD)No.10820 of 2022

¶17

in agricultural lands bearing Survey No.170/3B situated in Kanniyapapillaipatti, Andipatti Taluk, Theni District.

¶18

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that a wine shop No.8609 is situated in the village along with the Bar and now, the wine shop has been shifted to another place, which lies in the agricultural land bearing S.No.170/3B, which is adjacent to the petitioner's land in S.No.170/2. The proposed shop is surrounded by agricultural lands and if the wine shop is shifted to the new place, the fear among the farmers is that the wastage and bottles will be thrown and plastic waste will be dumbed in the adjacent agricultural lands. The petitioner and others, being farmers, worship their land as God and if wine shop is shifted near the agricultural lands, the environment will be polluted. It is further stated that near to the agricultal lands, there is a Temple and it is worshipped by the villagers. Therefore, the petitioner has sent a representation to the Chief Minister’s cell on 28.03.2022, which has been forwaded to the fourth respondent. The fourth respondent, without considering the petitoner’s representation and objections, had sent proposal in Na.Ka.No.266/2020/A4 dated 31.03.2022 stating that the said wine shop satisfies Rule 8(1) of the Tamil Nadu Liquor Retail Vending (in Shops and Bar) Rules 2003. Aggrieved over the same, the present writ petition has been filed.

¶19

The learned counsel for the petitioner has also produced a copy of the order of this Court passed in W.P.No.20076 of 2019 dated 19.07.2019, wherein, a Division Bench of this Court had held that no shops on the agricultural to be located and opened. He has also produced patta, chitta and adangal as well the photograph of the proposed shop which is adjacent to the agricultural lands.

¶20

The learned Standing Counsel appering for the third and fourth respondents would submit that the proposal of shifting the shop is pending. The fourth respondent has now sent the proposal to the second respondent. The present wine shop is presently located abetting the main road and junction, due to which, there had been some disturbance in the traffic movement and also, on advice of the Law Enforcing Agency, the fourth respondent was finding an alternate place. The present place is 150m away from the existing shop, which is in the interior area, outside the village, so that, disturbanace if any can be minimum. The learned Standing Counsel has also produced photos, field map and other docouments. He further submits that shifting of shop and change of location can be made only with the prior permission of the Collector. If the Collector receives an objection for change of location, he would consider the same and pass orders. If at all the petitioner has got any grievance, the petitioner can make his representation to the Collector and the same can be considered.

¶21

Heard both sides and also perused the materials available on record. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶22

2/3

¶23

W.P.(MD)No.10820 of 2022

¶24

The petitioner has got some objections with regard to the shifting of shop. If at all the petitioner has any objection, he shall approach the second respondent and make his obejctions with supporting documents. Thereafter, the second respondent shall consider the same and pass orders on mertis and in accordance with law on the proposal submitted by the fourth respondent.

¶25

With the above direction, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs.

¶26

Assistant Registrar(P&A)

¶27

// True Copy //

¶28

/07/2022 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶29

aav

¶30

¶31

1.The Principal Secretary, The State of Tamil Nadu Secretariat, St.George Fort, Chennai- 9.

¶32

The District Collector Theni District

¶33

The Tahsildar Andipatti Taluk Theni District 4. The District Manager, Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation(TASMAC) Theni District +1 CC to M/s.SPL.GP ( SR-26176[F] dated 16/06/2022 ) +1 CC to M/s.S. DEVASENA, Advocate ( SR-26591[F] dated 17/06/2022 )

¶34

W.P.(MD)No.10820 of 2022 15.06.2022

¶35

NSN(CO) KB(04.07.2022) 3P 7C

¶36

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

¶37

3/3

Karthikeyan .T v. The State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karthikeyan .T v. The State of Tamil Nadu

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

Solamuthuraja (Died) Vs the Commissioner

Saravana Associates Vs The Country Director

Sivagangai Samasthanam Devasthanam Vs The Commissioner

Lakshmi.P Vs The Chairman

Sasi Pandidurai Vs The District Collector

Sethupathi.R Vs The District Collector