A.Raja v. The District Collector
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED:13.06.2017
CORAM
THE HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE K. RAVICHANDRABAABU W.P.No.7583 of 2017 and WMP.No.8264 of 2017 A.Raja
...Petitioner
Vs.
1. The District Collector, Villupuram District, Villupuram.
2. The District Manager (TASMAC Ltd.,) Villupuram district, Villupuram.
3. The Thasildhar (Excise) Kallakurichi Taluk, Villupuram District.
...Respondents
PRAYER : Writ petition filed under article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to issue a writ of mandamus directing the 1st respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 13.03.2017 with regard to opening TASMAC shop with bar violating Rule 8 and 10 of TN Liquor Vending Rules 2003 and in the light of TAMIL NADU STATE GOVT POLICY OF TOTAL PROHIBITION IN PHASED MANNER as per press release dated 23.02.2017.
For Petitioner :Mr.R. Kumaravel For Respondents :Mr.B.Nedunchezhian Standing counsel for TASMAC
ORDER
The petitioner is aggrieved by the proposed location of a TASMAC shop with Bar at Kaniyamoor village, Kallakurichi Taluk, Villupuram District. Therefore, he made a representation on 13.03.207, opposing such proposed location of the TASMAC shop. When his objection was not taken up for consideration, he approached this Court and filed the present writ petition https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
seeking for a mandamus directing the first respondent to consider his representation dated 13.03.2017. After notice, this writ petition is taken up for further hearing today.
2. Mr.B.Nedunchezhiyan, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent, based on instructions, submitted that the shop already located in the disputed area, is now closed, in pursuant to the opposition made by the public and therefore, the petitioner need not have any apprehension.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the above submission of the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent may be recorded and the writ petition may accordingly be closed.
4. Upon hearing the learned counsel on either side and considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the second respondent, I do not think that any further order is required in the present writ petition in view of the statement made by the learned counsel for the second respondent. Accordingly, the said statement is recorded and consequently, writ petition is closed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also closed.
Sd/- Assistant Registrar //True Copy// gsa Sub Assistant Registrar To
1. The District Collector, Villupuram District, Villupuram.
2. The District Manager (TASMAC Ltd.,) Villupuram district, Villupuram.
3. The Thasildhar (Excise) Kallakurichi Taluk, Villupuram District.
+1cc to Mr.R.Kumaravel, Advocate, S.R.No.40883 +1cc to Mr.B.Nedunchezhiyan, Advocate, S.R.No.41797 W.P.No.7583 of 2017 SS(CO) RS(21/06/2017) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/