G.Gobi @ Gobalakrishnan v. The District Collector
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 02.04.2024
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.SANJAY V.GANGAPURWALA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD G.Gobi @ Gobalakrishnan : Petitioner Vs 1.The District Collector Vellore District 2.The Assistant Commissioner (Excise) Department of Excise District Collectorate Complex, Vellore District 3.The Senior Regional Manager TASMAC No.56, Brindavan Raod Fair Lands Salem 636 016 4.The District Manager TASMAC No.1, Katpadi Raod, Thotapalayam Vellore 632 001 : Respondents Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to remove the TASMAC Liquor shop bearing Nos.11344 and 11094 situated at Arcot Road Kagithapattarai and relocate it to some other
unobjectionable place based on petitioner's representation dated 24.06.2022.
For Petitioner :
Mr.C.Arun Kumar For Respondents 1, 2 :
Mr.A.Anandan, Government Advocate For Respondents 3, 4 :
Mr.K.Balakrishnan, Standing Counsel
ORDER
(Made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice) We have heard Mr.C.Arun Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.A.Anandan, learned Government Advocate for respondents 1 and 2 and Mr.K.Balakrishnan, learned counsel appearing for respondents 3 and 4.
2. The petition is filed seeking directions that the subject Tasmac liquor shop should not operate in the present place and be relocated to some other unobjectionable place.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the TASMAC
shop in question is located within 40 meters of the religious place.
4. Learned counsel appearing for respondents 3 and 4 submits that the Tasmac shop is located in a commercial area, and in a commercial area, distance restrictions do not apply.
5. Rule 8 of the Tamil Nadu Liquor Retail Vending (in Shops and Bars) Rules, 2003 provides for the minimum distance to be maintained from the place of worship and educational institution. Proviso to subRule (1) of Rule 8 exempts distance restrictions in areas designated as "Commercial" or "Industrial" by the Development or Town Planning Authorities.
6. According to learned counsel for respondents 3 and 4, the Town Planning Authority has not designated the place where the Tasmac shop is situated now, to be a commercial area.
7. The District Collector is the competent authority to consider an objection with regard to the functioning of a Tasmac shop. An aggrieved person can approach the authorities under Rule 9 of the
Tamil Nadu Liquor Retail Vending (in Shops and Bars) Rules, 2003.
8. In case the petitioner approaches the authorities and makes an application within ten days from today, the authority concerned shall consider the complaint of the petitioner on its own merits, after hearing all the parties concerned, and take a decision preferably within three months from the date of making the application.
9. The writ petition stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
(S.V.G., CJ.) (J.S.N.P., J.) 02.04.2024 Index : Yes/No : Yes/No tar
To 1.The District Collector, Vellore District 2.The Assistant Commissioner (Excise) Department of Excise District Collectorate Complex, Vellore District 3.The Senior Regional Manager TASMAC No.56, Brindavan Raod Fair Lands Salem 636 016 4.The District Manager TASMAC No.1, Katpadi Raod, Thotapalayam Vellore 632 001
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD, J.
(tar) 02.04.2024