Madras High CourtWP/26179/2023dismissed

S.Panneerselvam v. The Principal Secretary To Government,

2023-11-30Honourable Mr Justice Krishnan Ramasamy10 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 30.11.2023

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY W.P.Nos.26179, 23234 and 27777 of 2023 and W.M.P.Nos. 25575, 22773, & 27267 of 2023 W.P.No.26179 of 2023 S.Panneerselvam ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The Principal Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai.

2.The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Limited, 4th floor, Gandhi Irwin Bridge, Egmore, Chennai. 3.The Senior Regional Manager, TASMAC Limited, 735, IV Floor, L.L.A. Building, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002.

4. The District Manager, TASMAC Limited (Chennai-South), Plot No.B4, Industrial Estate, Ambattur, Chennai - 600 053.

...

Respondents

W.P.No.23234 of 2023 1.M.Balamurugan 2.S.Amalraj 3.Raja Elango 4.Mahendra Varman 5.Karthikeyan 6.Subramanian 7.Anjali 8.Rengasamy 9.Mani 10.Anbarasan 11.Murugan 12.Chandrasekar 13.Lakshmana Perumal 14.A.Senthilkumar 15.Poosappan.K 16.N.Subramanian 17.M.Rajendra Prabhu 18.ArokiaRaj.Y 19.G.Rajkumar 20.K.S.Vihaan 21.Kumari 22.E.V.Guruvayurappan 23.Nageshwari 24.D.Balamurugan ... Petitioners Vs.

1.The Secretary, Department of Home, Prohibition and Excise, Government of Tamil Nadu, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.

2.The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Limited, 4th Floor, Gandhi Irwin Bridge Road,

Egmore, Chennai - 600 008.

... Respondents W.P.No.27777 of 2023 1.R.K.Kutty 2.K.Karuthapandiyan 3.S.Balaji 4.R.Muthulakshmi 5.D.Mohan 6.Palanisamy 7.M.S.Sadagopan 8.Rajakumari ... Petitioners vs.

1.The Secretary, Department of Home, Prohibition and Excise, Government of Tamil Nadu, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.

2.The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Limited, 4th Floor, Gandhi Irwin Bridge Road, Egmore, Chennai 600 008.

...

Respondents Common Prayer: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the impugned proceedings dated 20.06.2023 of the 2nd respondent in Rc.No.R3/2833/2023 dated 20.06.2023 to quash the same and further direct the 2nd respondent to open the TASMAC Retail shops that were being

operated in the petitioners premises.

For Petitioner(s) : Mr.P.G.Santhosh Kumar (in W.P.No.26179 of 2023) : Mr.Hari Radhakrishnan (in W.P.No.23234 of 2023) : Mr.Avinash Wadhwani for Mr.M.Manimaran (in W.P.No.27777 of 2023) For Respondents : Mr.J.Ravindran Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr.K.Sathish Kumar [for R2 in W.P.Nos.23234 & 27777 of 2023 and for R2 to R4 in W.P.No.26179 of 2023] Mr.K.Balakrishnan Standing counsel for TASMAC Mr.K.Surendran, Additional Government Pleader [for R1 in all W.P's] COMMON ORDER These writ petitions have been filed, challenging the impugned proceedings of the 2nd respondent in Rc.No.R3/2833/2023 dated 20.06.2023 and further direct the 2nd respondent to open the TASMAC retail shops that were being operated in the petitioner's premises. In all these writ petitions, the grievances of the petitioners is pertaining to the decision taken by the respondents to close 500 TASMAC retail shops because the said shops which were being operated in the respective

petitioners' buildings do not meet any of the criteria mentioned in the impugned order.

According to the petitioners, they leased out the property to the respondents who built up the shops and bars and had made substantial investment. In such situation, if all of a sudden those TASMAC retail shops are closed, they would incur huge loss.

Further, the relationship between the petitioners and the respondents is landlord-tenant relationship. Such fact has been admitted by both the parties. Under these circumstances, the respective learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in order to close down 500 TASMAC retail shops, the 1st respondent has framed certain guidelines and contrary to such guidelines issued by them, them impugned decision has been taken to close down 500 TASMAC retail shops situated at the petitioners' premises and the Government has also taken a decision to close down those TASMAC retail shops that were situated nearby temples and educational institutions. Therefore, they would submit that it is contrary to their own regulations. Hence, the present writ petitions have been filed.

4. On the other hand, Mr.J.Ravindran, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the respondents would submit in the present case, the locus standi to file the present writ petitions is that the Government has taken decision to close down 500 TASMAC retail shops in terms of guidelines that have been framed which are all directory in nature. 4.1 He further submitted that it is for the respondents to take appropriate decision to run or close down the TASMAC retail shops and at any cost, the petitioners cannot approach this Court, challenging the closure order issued by the respondents and if at all, being the owner of the property and if there is any grievances, then the remedy would be not before this Court but before the appropriate forum. Without approaching the appropriate forum, the present writ petitions have been filed, which are not maintainable and liable to the dismissed.

He also submitted that if this Court comes to a conclusion that the writ petitions are not maintainable, then the petitioners may be permitted to make proper representation before the Authority concerned to reconsider the decision taken by the respondents and also to approach the appropriate

forum.

Heard learned counsels for both sides and also perused the materials available on record.

This Court is of the considered view that in the present case, the relationship between the parties is only the owner and the landlord-tenant relationship whereby the tenant is entitled to take decision to close their business. In the event, if any owner is aggrieved from such decision of the tenant and if it is contrary to the agreed terms, then the remedy available for the owners/petitioners is not by virtue of filing the writ petition, but to approach the appropriate forum in accordance with law. 7.1 That apart, the petitioners being the owners of the property, they are not the right persons to challenge the policy decision made by the Government to close down the TASMAC retail shops which is in public interest. The writ petitions filed by the petitioners appear to be in the nature of Public Interest Litigation but the motive is to achieve their personal interest.

7.2 At any cost, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the policy decision of the Government to close down 500 TASMAC retail shops. Further, it is up to the respondent to take the decision to close down the TASMAC retail shops. Even if there is any lapses in respect of the guidelines, this would not invalidate the ultimate decision of the respondent to close down the shops and it is up to the respondent to take proper action for not taking into consideration for violating the guidelines by the Officers concerned to close down the TASMAC retail shops. Further, the guidelines are not mandatory in nature,but it is guiding in nature. 7.3 Such being the case, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the respondents and to issue any directions. Accordingly, this Court is dismissing all the writ petitions. The petitioners are liberty to make representation to the respondents ventilating their grievances. In which case, it is up to the respondent to take a decision to deal with such representations in accordance with law.

Accordingly, the writ petitions stand dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 30.11.2023 veda Internet:Yes Index : Yes / No Speaking order/Non-Speaking order To 1.The Principal Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai.

4. The District Manager, TASMAC Limited (Chennai-South), Plot No.B4, Industrial Estate,

Ambattur, Chennai - 600 053.

KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J.

veda W.P.Nos.26179, 23234, 27777 of 2023 30.11.2023