Madras High Court
R.Vinod Kumar vs The Managing Director on 6 June, 2024
Author: R.Suresh Kumar
Bench: R.Suresh Kumar
W.P.(MD) No.11772 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 06.06.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN
W.P.(MD)No.11772 of 2024
and
W.M.P.(MD)No.10513 of 2024
R.Vinod Kumar ... Petitioner
-Vs-
1.The Managing Director,
Tamilnadu State Marketing Corporation Limited,
(TASMAC) Office, CMDA Building,
4th Floor, Egmore, Chennai-600 018.
2.The District Collector,
The District Collector Office,
Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.
3.The Assistant Commissioner,
Prohibition and Excise Department,
Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.
4.The District Manager,
Tamilnadu State Marketing Corporation (TASMAC),
Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a
Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the respondents from locating the TASMAC shop
Page 1 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.11772 of 2024
in Survey No.36/20B and Building No.03/16A/4, 3 Puravoor Manivilai, Palukal
Panchayat limits, Vilavancode Taluk, Kanyakumari District in the light of the
orders passed by this Court in W.P.(MD)No.20574 of 2019, dated 12.11.2019 and
by considering the representation dated 07.03.2024 sent by the petitioner.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Ramakrishnan,
for Mr.K.Rajesh
For R1 & R4 : Mr.S.Sivanesan,
Standing Counsel
For R2 & R3 : Mr.P.Thilak Kumar,
Government Pleader
ORDER
[Order of the Court was made by R.SURESH KUMAR, J.] The prayer sought for in this Writ Petition is to forbear the respondents from locating the TASMAC shop in Survey No.36/20B and Building No.03/16A/4, 3 Puravoor Manivilai, Palukal Panchayat limits, Vilavancode Taluk, Kanyakumari District, in the light of the orders passed by this Court in W.P.(MD)No.20574 of 2019, dated 12.11.2019 and by considering the representation dated 07.03.2024 sent by the petitioner.
2.A TASMAC Shop No.4820 was already located at Palukal Town Panchayat limits, Vilavancode Taluk, Kanyakumari District. That was objected by Page 2 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.11772 of 2024 the local people on various grounds. Despite that, since the shop had not been closed, the very same petitioner had approached this Court in the earlier occasion and filed W.P.(MD)No.20574 of 2019 as a Public Interest Litigation. That Writ Petition was allowed by the order of the Division Bench of this Court, dated 12.11.2019, where at the operative portion, the Division Bench has passed the following order:-
“6.In any event, no bar facility can be provided in an open area in terms of the Rules in force. Therefore, the shop has to be closed. Hence, this Writ Petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to remove the TASMAC Shop No.4820 and after closing the shop, it is open to the respondent TASMAC to apply to the District Collector for grant of No Objection Certificate, to relocate the shop in some other unobjectionable site. This order should be implemented within a period of 48 hours from today (ie., 12.11.2019). No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.”
3.When that being so, now, the TASMAC authorities want to relocate the shop in another location, which is, according to the TASMAC, 500 meters away from the location of the earlier shop. In this context, the objections of the public having been considered were replied by the District Manager of TASMAC, Kanyakumari District, vide his proceedings dated 22.05.2024, where he has stated the following:-Page 3 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.11772 of 2024 “khz;gik ePjpkd;w cj;juTg;gb %lg;gl;l kJghdf;
filahdJ rh;Nt vz;.37/7-y; mike;j fl;bl vz;.3-44A/4>5-y; nray;gl;L te;jJ. Mdhy; jw;nghOJ kJghdf;fil mikf;f Njh;T nra;ag;gl;Ls;s ,lkhdJ rh;Nt vz;.36/20B-y;
mike;Js;s fl;bl vz;.31/16A> 4.3 MFk;. ePjpkd;w cj;juT MdJ Kd;G kJghdf;fil nray;gl;L te;j fl;blj;jpw;F kl;LNk nghUe;Jk;. jw;nghOJ kJghdf;fil mikf;f Njh;T nra;ag;gl;Ls;s fl;blj;jpw;F khz;gik ePjpkd;w cj;juT nghUe;jhJ. khz;gik ePjpkd;w cj;juTg;gb %lg;gl;l kJghdf;filf;Fk; Gjpjhf kJghdf;fil mikf;f Njh;T nra;ag;gl;Ls;s ,lj;jpw;Fk; 500 kPl;lh; Jhu ,ilntspAs;sJ. Gjpjhf kJghdf;fil mikAs;s fl;blj;jpw;Fk; ePjpkd;w cj;jutpy; njhptpf;fg;gl;Ls;sthW khtl;l Ml;rpj;jiyth; mth;fspd; chpa cj;juT ngw;w gpwNf kJghdf;fil mikf;f eltbf;if vLf;fg;gLk; vd;gij njhptpj;Jf;nfhs;fpNwd;.”
4.At this juncture, the petitioner once again has approached this Court by filing the present Writ Petition.
5.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that there is a School called 'All Saints School Manivila', which has given objection on 14.03.2024 to the Managing Director of TASMAC, Chennai and there is a Church called 'ST.John Baptist Church, Manivila', which has given its objection on 16.03.2024 to the District Collector, located nearby the proposed location. That Page 4 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.11772 of 2024 apart, the public in the locality had given a joint representation on 14.05.2024 to the District Collector, Kanyakumari District, where 50 plus members of the local public had signed memorandum, raising objections for the proposed location of the TASMAC shop. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that when the objections had come from all sides of the local public and there has been a School and Church located very nearby, the proposed location is also not conducive and suitable to locate the TASMAC shop. Therefore, considering the objections, the proposal should be dropped. To that extent, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks indulgence of this Court.
6.The learned Standing Counsel for the TASMAC would submit that in the communication dated 22.05.2024, the District Manager of TASMAC has made it clear that with regard to the proposed location, the issue had already been referred to the District Collector, Kanyakumari District for consideration and grant of permission or No Objection Certificate and only after securing permission or No Objection Certificate from the District Collector alone, further course of action would be taken to locate the shop.
7.The learned Government Pleader for the respondents 2 and 3 would submit that under Rule 8 of the Tamil Nadu Liquor Retail Vending (In Shops and Page 5 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.11772 of 2024 Bars) Rules, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Rules'), the power is vested with the District Collector to consider all the objections with regard to the location of the TASMAC shop and based on the criterion, that has been fixed under the said Rules, such objections would be considered and orders would be passed. Therefore, the objections, that have been raised by the local public, Church authorities as well as the School Management, would be considered by the District Collector in accordance with the said Rules and accordingly, orders would be passed.
8.We have considered these submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.
9.Insofar as the earlier location of the TASMAC shop is concerned, it has been closed, of course, pursuant to the order of this Court in the first round of litigation filed by the very same petitioner.
10.However, for locating the shop in any other unobjectionable location, there has been a way, that is indicated in paragraph No.6 of the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.(MD)No.20574 of 2019, dated 12.11.2019.
Page 6 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.11772 of 2024
11.Be that as it may, now, there has been objection from the Church, School as well as the local public and those objections have been given to the District Collector as well as the General Manager of the TASMAC. If these kind of objections have come, certainly, that shall be considered objectively by the District Collector, within the meaning of Rule 8 of the said Rules and accordingly, a decision consciously shall be taken by the District Collector, then only, whether the TASMAC shop can be located in the proposed location or not, can be decided by the TASMAC authorities.
12.In that view of the matter, we direct the 2nd respondent / District Collector, Kanyakumari District to consider the objections, that have been given by the School, Church as well as the local public as indicated above and copy of these objections shall be forwarded collectively along with this order by the petitioner to the 2nd respondent / District Collector immediately. On receipt of the copy of this order along with the collection of objections from the petitioner, the same shall be considered by the 2nd respondent / District Collector under Rule 8 of the said Rules and including the amendment that has been made in the said Rules dated 13.02.2022 and necessary orders shall be passed, after having objectively Page 7 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.11772 of 2024 considered these objections with regard to the proposed location of the TASMAC shop, within a period of two months thereafter. Depending upon the decision to be made by the District Collector, further course of action can be taken by the TASMAC authorities.
13.With these directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
[R.S.K., J.] & [G.A.M., J.]
06.06.2024
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
Yuva
To
1.The District Collector,
The District Collector Office,
Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.
2.The Assistant Commissioner,
Prohibition and Excise Department,
Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.
Page 8 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.11772 of 2024
R.SURESH KUMAR, J.
AND
G.ARUL MURUGAN, J.
Yuva
W.P.(MD)No.11772 of 2024
06.06.2024
Page 9 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis