Allowed

P.Lakshmanamurthy v. the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise

Madras HC12 Jan 2024WP/774/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a Panchayat President, sought to stop a TASMAC shop on agricultural land pending a statutory appeal against the Collector's rejection. The Court granted an interim stay against opening the shop until the appeal was disposed of under Rule 9A of Tamil Nadu Liquor Rules, 2003.

What did the court decide?

Directive to the 3rd respondent (TASMAC) not to open the liquor shop at the specified location until the statutory appeal under Rule 9A is disposed of by the 1st respondent.

P.Lakshmanamurthy Vs the Commissioner of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.No.774 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 12.01.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY Writ Petition No.774 of 2024 and W.M.P.No.794 of 2024

P.Lakshmanamurthy

... Petitioner

-vs-

1.The Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise, Chepauk, Chennai-600 005.

¶10

2.The District Collector, Coimbatore District, Coimbatore.

¶11

3.The Tamil Nadu State Marketing, Corporation Limited (TASMAC), Represented by its District Manager (North), Coimbatore District, Coimbatore. ... Respondents

¶12

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of

¶13

India, pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondents 2 & 3 from locating and opening the TASMAC wine shop in the agricultural lands in Survey No.200/2 at Pillayappanpalayam Village, Annur-via, Coimbatore

¶14

1/5

¶15

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶16

W.P.No.774 of 2024

¶17

District, till the disposal of the statutory appeal of the petitioner dated 01.01.2024.

¶18

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Selvaraj For R1 & R2 : Mr.E.Sundaram, Govt. Advocate

¶19

For R3 : Mr.K.Sathish Kumar Standing Counsel (TASMAC)

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The petitioner seeks a direction to restrain respondents 2 and 3 from opening a TASMAC wine shop at the address specified in the prayer of the writ petition.

¶22

The petitioner asserts that he is the elected President of Pillayappanpalayam Panchayat. He further submits that the panchayat passed a resolution to prevent the location of the TASMAC wine shop at Pillayappanpalayam, Pachapalayam main road. He also states that the District Collector rejected the petitioner's representation in such regard by order dated 14.12.2023. A statutory appeal was filed against the said order before the 1^st respondent on 01.01.2024.

¶23

2/5

¶24

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶25

W.P.No.774 of 2024

¶26

Although the relief claimed is to restrain the opening of the

¶27

TASMAC wine shop, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the 1^st respondent may be directed to dispose of the pending appeal expeditiously. He also points out that Rule 9A of the Tamil Nadu Liquor (Retail Vending in Shops & Bars), Rules 2003 does not provide for a stay application.

¶28

Mr.E.Sundaram, learned Government Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of respondents 1 & 2. Mr.K.Sathish Kumar, learned Standing Counsel (TASMAC), accepts notice on behalf of the 3^rd respondent. Mr.K.Sathish Kumar submits that sub-rule (2) of Rule 9A mandates that the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise shall dispose of the appeal within 60 days. Therefore, he further submits that the petitioner would not be prejudiced in the meantime.

¶29

As contended by learned counsel for the petitioner, Rule 9A of the Tamil Nadu Liquor (Retail Vending in Shops & Bars), Rules 2003 does not provide for filing of a stay application. If the liquor shop is set up pending disposal of the appeal, the appeal would be rendered infructuous.

¶30

3/5

¶31

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶32

W.P.No.774 of 2024

¶33

In those circumstances, W.P.No.774 of 2024 is disposed of by directing the 3^rd respondent not to open the TASMAC wine shop at the relevant location until the statutory appeal under Rule 9A is disposed of by the 1^st respondent. There will be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶34

12.01.2024

¶35

Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Neutral Citation: Yes / No

¶36

¶37

¶38

1.The Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise, Chepauk, Chennai-600 005.

¶39

2.The District Collector, Coimbatore District, Coimbatore.

¶40

3.The Tamil Nadu State Marketing, Corporation Limited (TASMAC), Represented by its District Manager (North), Coimbatore District, Coimbatore.

¶41

4/5

¶42

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶43

W.P.No.774 of 2024

¶44

SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY,J

¶45

¶46

Writ Petition No.774 of 2024 and W.M.P.No.794 of 2024

¶47

12.01.2024

¶48

5/5

¶49

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

P.Lakshmanamurthy v. the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Lakshmanamurthy v. the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise

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

Tvl.Raja Explosives Vs The Assistant Commissioner

Ms.Acrologic Business Solutions Private Limited Vs Assistant Commissioner of Central Taxes

G.Ramamoorthy Vs the Managing Director

M.Kannan Vs the Managing Director

Tvl Layam Talent Academy Foundation Vs The Assistanat Commsissioner (St) (Fac)

Ingram Micro India Private Limited Vs State Tax Officer