Dismissed¶48

M/s.Tn Tourism Society Adyar, v. The Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise

Madras HC1 Sept 2025WA/2048/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court Division Bench (R. Suresh Kumar and Hemant Chandangoudar, JJ.), W.A.No.2048 of 2025, decided 01.09.2025: writ appeal against dismissal of W.P.No.13291 of 2025 dismissed; FL-2 liquor licence renewal rejection by District Collector dated 24.03.2025 upheld for want of clear title/renewed lease over premises owned by 3rd respondent Prem Kallat; appellant ceased to hold FL-2 licensee status and has no authority to sell liquor; conditional direction to respondents 1 and 2 and jurisdictional police regarding alleged continued illegal sale.

What did the court decide?

The decision of the learned Judge in rejecting the writ petition by refusing to interfere with the 2nd respondent's order of rejection for renewal of FL-2 licence dated 24.03.2025 is sustainable. ¶47

M/s.Tn Tourism Society Adyar, Vs The Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶48

Issue for consideration

Whether the intra-court appeal should set aside the writ Court's order dated 25.06.2025 dismissing W.P.No.13291 of 2025. +1 more

¶24

Court's answer

The Bench is not inclined to interfere with the order impugned; the writ appeal fails and is dismissed, with no costs, and the connected C.M.P. is closed.

¶48

Ratio / Principle

The decision of the learned Judge in rejecting the writ petition by refusing to interfere with the 2nd respondent's order of rejection for renewal of FL-2 licence dated 24.03.2025 is sustainable.

¶47

Key takeaways

On the rejection of the renewal application on 24.03.2025, the appellant ceased to be the FL-2 licensee provided by respondents 1 and 2 to deal with liquor.ratio¶42
The appellant has no legal authority to deal with sale or distribution of liquor, either to the public or to the members of the so-called society.ratio¶42
Conditional direction: respondents 1 and 2 shall verify the alleged continued sale of liquor in the premises and, if need arises, lodge a complaint before the jurisdictional police, who shall enquire and proceed in accordance with law against the appellant or their men.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of Letters Patent - M/s.TN Tourism Society Adyar v. Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise and others - FL-2 (liquor) licence renewal - The appellant's renewal application was rejected by the 2nd respondent/District Collector (R.C.No.L3/2744230/2024, dated 24.03.2025) because the licensed premises belong to the 3rd respondent, the lease was not renewed, and civil litigations over the property are pending. The writ Court (order dated 25.06.2025 in W.P.No.13291 of 2025) dismissed the appellant's quashment petition. The Division Bench found the learned Judge's refusal to interfere with the rejection order sustainable, observed that on rejection the appellant ceased to be an FL-2 licensee with no legal authority to deal in liquor, and directed respondents 1 and 2 to verify the alleged continued illegal sale and, if needed, lodge a complaint with the jurisdictional police. Writ appeal dismissed; no costs; connected C.M.P. closed.

¶1

W.A.No.2048 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 01.09.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE R. SURESH KUMAR

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶8

W.A.No.2048 of 2025 AND C.M.P.No.15547 of 2025

¶9

M/s.TN Tourism Society Adyar Rep. by its President S.Kalyan Saarang 79, Injambakkam ECR, Chennai 600 115

¶10

.. Appellant

¶11

Vs.

¶12

1.The Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise O/o.The Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise Department Chepauk, Chennai 600 005

¶13

2.The District Collector Chennai District Chennai 600 001

¶14

3.Prem Kallat

¶15

.. Respondents

¶16

Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside the order

¶17

dated 25.06.2025 passed in W.P.No.13291 of 2025.

¶18

1/8

¶19

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

¶20

W.A.No.2048 of 2025

¶21

For Appellant : Mr.N.Thamizhanban For RR1 & 2 : Mr.E.Vijay Anand Additional Government Pleader For R3 : Mr.S.R.Raghunathan for Mr.K.Selvakumar

¶22

J U D G M E N T

¶23

[delivered by R.SURESH KUMAR, J.]

¶24

This intra-court appeal has been directed against the order dated 25.06.2025 passed by the writ Court in W.P.No.13291 of 2025.

¶25

The present appellant was the writ petitioner in whose favour originally

¶26

FL-2 license was given and subsequently, in order to get renewal, the appellant/

¶27

writ petitioner approached the 2^nd respondent/District Collector. Having considered the said request for FL-2 license, the 2^nd respondent rejected the same in his proceedings in R.C.No.L3/2744230/2024 dated 24.03.2025. Challenging the said rejection order, the appellant/writ petitioner filed a writ petition seeking quashment.

¶28

The learned Judge who heard the writ petition, dismissed the same, by upholding the rejection order passed by the 2^nd respondent on the ground that the premises of the appellant/writ petitioner where he wanted to conduct the bar,

¶29

2/8

¶30

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

¶31

W.A.No.2048 of 2025 for which he sought for renewal of FL-2 license, belongs to the 3^rd respondent, though it was initially leased out to the appellant/writ petitioner, subsequently, the lease has not been renewed by the 3^rd respondent. In this context, already litigations have been filed before the civil Court which are said to be pending.

¶32

When that being the position, the learned Judge found that there has been no clear title even by way of lease by a proper lease deed from the owner of the property, the question of considering the FL-2 license as sought for by the appellant/writ petitioner does not arise and therefore, it was rightly considered and rejected by the 2^nd respondent through the order impugned before the writ Court. Therefore, the learned Judge dismissed the writ petition through the impugned order.

¶33

We have heard Mr.N.Thamizhanban, learned counsel for the appellant/ writ petitioner, Mr.E.Vijay Anand, learned Additional Government Pleader, appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 and Mr.S.R.Raghunathan, learned counsel appearing for the 3^rd respondent.

¶34

The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 would submit that initially though the FL-2 license was given to the appellant/writ petitioner, subsequently, when renewal application 3/8

¶35

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

¶36

W.A.No.2048 of 2025 was filed, it was found that the very premises itself for which FL-2 license was sought to be renewed, does not belong to the appellant/writ petitioner and under the capacity as a lessee, he has not produced a valid lease hold agreement properly renewed with the 3^rd respondent, who is the owner of the property. When that being so, the request made by the appellant/writ petitioner was turned out, of course rightly, he contended.

¶37

Mr.S.R.Raghunathan, learned counsel appearing for the 3^rd respondent would submit that the 3^rd respondent is not ready and willing to renew the lease agreement and in fact, the 3^rd respondent wanted the appellant/writ petitioner to vacate the premises and in this regard, already civil Court has been approached by the parties.

¶38

It is the further contention of the learned counsel appearing for the 3^rd respondent that despite FL-2 license renewal has been rejected by the order dated 24.03.2025, till yesterday, the board showing that the appellant/writ petitioner is running the bar and liquor being sold there was still available and yesterday only they removed the board which shows that till date, the appellant/ writ petitioner is running the business i.e ., illegally, he contended.

¶39

4/8

¶40

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

¶41

W.A.No.2048 of 2025

¶42

Even though the said allegation is denied by the learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner, the fact remains that the date on which the renewal application was considered and rejected by the 2^nd respondent i.e ., 24.03.2025, the appellant/writ petitioner ceased to become the licensee of FL-2 license provided by the respondents 1 and 2 to deal with the liquor. When that being the position, the appellant/writ petitioner does not have any legal authority to deal with the liquor sale or distribution of the liquor, either to the public or to the members of the so-called society i.e. , TN Tourism Society Adyar, which is the name they have shown for the appellant/writ petitioner.

¶43

In this context, even though it was denied by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/writ petitioner for the illegal sale of liqour in the premises itself, this position has to be verified by the respondents 1 and 2 and if need arises, necessary complaint has to be lodged before the jurisdictional police and if any such complaint is lodged, the jurisdictional police shall be duty bound to enquire the matter and proceed in accordance with law against the appellant/writ petitioner or their men.

¶44

Insofar as the decision taken by the learned Judge in rejecting the writ petition by refusing to interfere with the order of rejection for renewal of 5/8

¶45

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

¶46

W.A.No.2048 of 2025

¶47

FL-2 license passed by the 2^nd respondent dated 24.03.2025 is sustainable and in

¶48

that view of the matter, we are not inclined to interfere with the order impugned. Resultantly, this writ appeal fails and accordingly, it is dismissed. No costs. Connected C.M.P. is closed.

¶49

[R.S.K., J.] [H.C., J.]

¶50

01.09.2025

¶51

gya

¶52

Index : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No

¶53

6/8

¶54

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