citedby: 6268075

Govindarasu vs The District Collector on 5 December, 2022

In this regard, a Division Bench of ____________ Page 11 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.30826 of 2022 this Court in G.Kanaga Bai Vs. The District Collector, Kanyakumari District and Ors.2, has categorically held that as per Rule 10(5) of the Tamil Nadu Liquor Retail Vending [in Shops and Bars] Rules, 2003, it is mandatory that all the TASMAC shops to have a signboard with slogan "kJ ehl;Lf;F. tPl;Lf;F. capUf;F nfL" (Liquor — ruins country, family and life) and that if any panchayat seeks to follow slogan in its letter and spirit by passing a resolution, the same has to be honoured.

Madras High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

V.Ka.Velusamy vs The District Collector on 21 November, 2014

In the case of G.Kanaga Bai vs. The District Collector, kanyakumari District and others (stated supra), the writ petition was filed by the petitioner therein to remove the TASMAC shop from a building at Sangurutti Village, Kanyakumari District, it was stated that the shop was located within the prohibited distance as contained in the Rules. The TASMAC resisted the prayer by stating that the distance rule is not violated. The Division Bench of this Court took into consideration the facts of the case wherein, the Village Panchayat passed a resolution resolving to request the District Collector not to grant permission to open a liquor shop. The facts in the resolution were taken into consideration.

Madras High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 3 - T S Sivagnanam - Full Document

V.Ravichandran vs The District Collector on 16 November, 2016

6. The learned senior counsel has made reliance on the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in TASMAC vs. R.M.Shah reported in (2010) CWC 337 and another judgment in T.Paulraj v. District Collector, Virudhunagar reported in (2013) 6 MLJ 133 and also yet another judgment in G.Kanaga Bai v. the District Collector, Kanyakumari District reported in (2013) 5 CTC 141. Thus, according to the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, since the shop has been located much against the wishes of the Panchayat, which is reflected by the resolution passed, the TASMAC shop should be closed. He would also submit that allowing people to drink liquors at this place results in disturbance to peaceful living of the people of the village and thus, there is violation of right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Madras High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 8 - M V Muralidaran - Full Document

M.Kannappan vs The District Collector

In support of such contention, the learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench in the cases of M.Edison vs. The District Collector [2012 (2) CWC 615]; G.Vetrivel vs. Golden Enclave Owners' Association & Ors., [2012 (6) CTC 661]; G.Kanaga Bai vs. The District Collector, Kanyakumari District & Ors., [2013 (5) CTC 141]; V.KA.Velusamy vs. The District Collector, Erode District & Ors., [2015 (1) CWC 9].

Madras High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - T S Sivagnanam - Full Document

R.Anbarasan vs Government Of Tamil Nadu Rep. By on 25 August, 2015

4.Sustaining the impugned order, the sixth respondent Association has filed counter affidavit. Learned counsel for the sixth respondent would rely on the decision of Madurai bench of this Court in G.Kanaga Bai Vs. The District Collector, Kanyakumari District and Others (2013 (5) CTC 141), wherein, it has been held that the authorities are bound to respect the sentiments of people.

Madras High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - R Mahadevan - Full Document

C.Sadhasivam vs The District Collector on 18 May, 2017

3. It is the case of the petitioner that the Supreme Court has laid down guidelines for establishing or running liquor shops and, therefore, any decision taken by the respondents should be in line with the decision of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos.12614 - 12616 of 2016 (Order dated 15.12.2016, clarified by order dated 31.3.2017). The learned counsel for the petitioner brought to the notice of this Court the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court dated 16.11.2016 in W.P.(MD) No.20063 of 2015 (V.Ravichandran v. The District Collector, Tirunelveli District and another) and the case reported in G.Kanaga Bai v. The District Collector, Kanyakumari District, 2013 (5) CTC 141.

Madras High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - R Mahadevan - Full Document

Arumugam vs The District Collector on 2 June, 2017

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has cited a Division Bench judgment of this Court in G.Kanaga Bai v. The District Collector, Kanyakumari District and others, reported in 2013 (5) CTC 141. The judgment is not an authority for the proposition that a liquor shop can in no circumstances be set up if there is an objection from the residents. In the aforesaid case, the TASMAC shop was opened in Survey No.81-1A1B in Sankurutti Village, Adaikakuzhy Post, Vilavancode Taluk, Kanyakumari District. The Court found that the shop was located very near Sankurutti bus stand within 80 metres of St. Thomas M.S.C. Middle School as also Boothanathan temple and within 50 metres of Shrine Catholic Church and CSI Church. In other words, there was a clear prima facie finding of contravention of vending rules in setting up the liquor shop. The judgment is, thus, clearly distinguishable.

Madras High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - M Sundar - Full Document

Thendral Selvaraj vs The Chief Secretary on 2 June, 2017

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has cited a Division Bench judgment of this Court in G.Kanaga Bai v. The District Collector, Kanyakumari District and others, reported in 2013 (5) CTC 141. The judgment is not an authority for the proposition that a liquor shop can in no circumstances be set up if there is an objection from the residents. In the aforesaid case, the TASMAC shop was opened in Survey No.81-1A1B in Sankurutti Village, Adaikakuzhy Post, Vilavancode Taluk, Kanyakumari District. The Court found that the shop was located very near Sankurutti bus stand within 80 metres of St. Thomas M.S.C. Middle School as also Boothanathan temple and within 50 metres of Shrine Catholic Church and CSI Church. In other words, there was a clear prima facie finding of contravention of vending rules in setting up the liquor shop. The judgment is, thus, clearly distinguishable.

Madras High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - M Sundar - Full Document

P.C.Kondappan vs The District Collector on 2 June, 2017

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has cited a Division Bench judgment of this Court in G.Kanaga Bai v. The District Collector, Kanyakumari District and others, reported in 2013 (5) CTC 141. The judgment is not an authority for the proposition that a liquor shop can in no circumstances be set up if there is an objection from the residents. In the aforesaid case, the TASMAC shop was opened in Survey No.81-1A1B in Sankurutti Village, Adaikakuzhy Post, Vilavancode Taluk, Kanyakumari District. The Court found that the shop was located very near Sankurutti bus stand within 80 metres of St. Thomas M.S.C. Middle School as also Boothanathan temple and within 50 metres of Shrine Catholic Church and CSI Church. In other words, there was a clear prima facie finding of contravention of vending rules in setting up the liquor shop. The judgment is, thus, clearly distinguishable.

Madras High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - M Sundar - Full Document

Search Results Page

Refine Search

Search Results