Dismissed

M.Kannan v. the Managing Director

Madras HC12 Jan 2024WP/869/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition challenged a liquor licence issued to a successful tenderer on premises allegedly leased by the petitioner. The Court held that a petitioner having participated in the tender and lost is not entitled to challenge the licence; their remedy lies in the civil suit filed for possession. The writ was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition and connected miscellaneous petitions are dismissed; no order as to costs.

M.Kannan Vs the Managing Director — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.No.869 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.869 of 2024 and W.M.P.Nos.899 & 900 of 2024

¶6

M.Kannan ... Petitioner

¶7

-vs-

¶8

1.The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd., CMDA Tower II, IV floor, Gandhi Irwin Road, Egmore, Chennai.

¶9

2.The Commissioner, Prohibition & Excise Department, Chepauk, Chennai.

¶10

3.Senior Regional Manager, Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd., Coimbatore Region, Coimbatore.

¶11

4.District Manager, Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd., Coimbatore South Zone, Coimbatore.

¶12

1/6

¶13

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

¶14

W.P.No.869 of 2024

¶15

5.The Superintendent of Police, Office of the SP, Pollachi sub-division, Coimbatore. 6.The Inspector of Police, Pollachi West Police Station, Coimbatore District. 7.S.Dharma Raja 8.M.Dharmaraj ... Respondents

¶16

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the 4^th respondent relating to the impugned licence issued in favour of the 7^th respondent dated 26.12.2023 bearing Na.Ka.No.RV3/1181/2023 for running the bar attached with TASMAC shop No.1895 and quashing the same.

¶17

For Petitioner : Mr.Srinath Sridevan, Senior Counsel for Mr.V.Karthikeyan For RR1, 3 & 4 : Mr.K.Sathish Kumar Standing Counsel (TASMAC) For R2 : Mr.E.Sundaram, Government Advocate For R5 & R6 : Mr.RMD.Mugilan, Govt. Adv. (Crl.side)

¶18

2/6

¶19

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

¶20

W.P.No.869 of 2024

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The petitioner assails the licence issued to the 7^th respondent on 26.12.2023 for running the bar attached to TASMAC shop No.1895.

¶23

The petitioner asserts that he is the lessee in respect of the relevant

¶24

premises and that the lease deed dated 21.01.2022 is for a period of 60 months or five years. Since the petitioner has a valid and subsisting lease in respect of the relevant premises, the grant of licence to the 7^th respondent is assailed.

¶25

Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner contends that the 7^th respondent is not in possession of the relevant premises and, therefore, the licence issued to him is liable to be quashed. In the alternative, he submits that the operation of the bar on the basis of the impugned licence be stayed until the appellate authority decides the petitioner's appeal under the Tamil Nadu Liquor Retail Vending (in Shops and Bars) Rules, 2003. He also points out that a civil suit was filed before the District Munsif, Pollachi to protect the lawful possession of the petitioner.

¶26

3/6

¶27

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

¶28

W.P.No.869 of 2024

¶29

Mr.K.Sathish Kumar, learned Standing Counsel (TASMAC),

¶30

accepts notice on behalf of respondents 1, 3 & 4. Mr.E.Sundaram, learned Government Advocate, accepts notice for the 2^nd respondent. Mr.RMD.Mugilan, learned Government Advocate (Crl.side), accepts notice on behalf of respondents 5 & 6.

¶31

The licence was issued to the 7^th respondent pursuant to a tender

¶32

floated by TASMAC. The admitted position is that the 7^th respondent was the highest bidder and that the petitioner herein participated in the tender but was the 2^nd highest bidder. Since TASMAC conducted an auction and issued a licence to the 7^th respondent pursuant thereto, the petitioner, who also participated in the said auction, is not entitled to challenge the licence issued to the 7^th respondent on the basis of the allegedly subsisting lease. Undoubtedly, the petitioner is entitled to initiate appropriate legal action in respect of possession under the lease and such action was initiated in the form of the suit before the District Munsif, Pollachi.

¶33

4/6

¶34

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

¶35

W.P.No.869 of 2024

¶36

For reasons set out above, W.P.No.869 of 2024 is dismissed by leaving it open to the petitioner to pursue civil proceedings so as to protect alleged possession pursuant to the lease. There will be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

¶37

12.01.2024 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Neutral Citation: Yes / No kj To 1.The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd., CMDA Tower II, IV floor, Gandhi Irwin Road, Egmore, Chennai. 2.The Commissioner, Prohibition & Excise Department, Chepauk, Chennai. 3.Senior Regional Manager, Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd., Coimbatore Region, Coimbatore.

¶38

SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY,J

¶39

5/6

¶40

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

¶41

W.P.No.869 of 2024

¶42

¶43

4.District Manager, Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd., Coimbatore South Zone, Coimbatore.

¶44

5.The Superintendent of Police, Office of the SP, Pollachi sub-division, Coimbatore.

¶45

6.The Inspector of Police, Pollachi West Police Station, Coimbatore District.

¶46

Writ Petition No.869 of 2024 and W.M.P.Nos.899 & 900 of 2024

¶47

12.01.2024

¶48

6/6

¶49

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

M.Kannan v. the Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Kannan v. the Managing Director

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

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

P.Lakshmanamurthy Vs the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise

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

Ingram Micro India Private Limited Vs State Tax Officer