The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court dismissed the writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The court held that the petitioner lacked locus standi as he was merely a licensee and not the owner of the leased property.
The writ petition was dismissed; no costs; the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.
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.
W.P.(MD) No.3194 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 18.02.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN
W.P.(MD) No.3194 of 2022 and W.M.P.(MD) No.2774 of 2022
K.Kutralam ... Petitioner
/vs./
1.Tamil Commissioner, Internal, Prohibition (M) Disposal Department, Chennai.
2.The Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Limited, Chennai.
3.The District Collector, Virudhunagar, Virudhunagar District.
4.The Regional Manager,
Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Limited, Madurai District.
5.The Assistant Commissioner,
Internal, Prohibition (M) Disposal Department, Virudhunagar District.
6.The Manager,
Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Limited, Virudhunagar District.
7.The Tahsildar, Sivakasi Taluk, Virudhunagar District. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the 2nd respondent to issue necessary direction to the 6th respondent not to shift the TASMAC outlet No.11946 situated at Vishwanatham Panchayat, Sivakasi Taluk, Virudhunagar District to some other place, based on petitioner representation dated 12.02.2022 made to the respondents.
1/2
W.P.(MD) No.3194 of 2022
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Ganeshkamu For R1, R3, R5 & R7 : Mr.S.Shaji Bino Special Government Pleader For R2, R4 & R6 : Mr.H.Arumugam
ORDER
A reading of document indicates that the petitioner is not the owner of the property, which is leased by one Ravindhiran, the original owner of the property. It appears that the petitioner was given licensee to run a Bar adjacent to the TASMAC shop. Therefore, the petitioner has no locus standi to request the 2nd respondent not to shift the TASMAC outlet No.11946 situated at Vishwanatham Panchayat, Sivakasi Taluk, Virudhunagar District. There is no merits in this writ petition.
2.Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Assistant Registrar(AD-II)
// True Copy //
/ /2022 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)
mm
To
1.Tamil Commissioner, Internal, Prohibition (M) Disposal Department, Chennai.
2.The District Collector, Virudhunagar, Virudhunagar District.
3.The Assistant Commissioner, Internal, Prohibition (M) Disposal Department, Virudhunagar District.
4.The Tahsildar, Sivakasi Taluk, Virudhunagar District.
+1 CC to M/s.H.ARUMUGAM, Advocate ( SR-7597[F] dated 21/02/2022 ) W.P.(MD)No.3194 of 2022 18.02.2022
sk(CO)
TR(03.03.2022) 2P 7C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
2/2
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner, who is a licensee for a bar adjacent to the TASMAC shop but not the property owner, has locus standi to seek a writ to prevent the shifting of the TASMAC outlet.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
K.Kutralam
Tamil Commissioner, Internal, Prohibition (M) Disposal Department, Chennai
The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Limited, Chennai
The District Collector, Virudhunagar
The Regional Manager, Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Limited, Madurai District
The Assistant Commissioner, Internal, Prohibition (M) Disposal Department, Virudhunagar District
C.Saravananan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
