Milton Arokkiyasamy v. The Commissioner Of Prohibition And Excise,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 21-11-2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE C. SARAVANAN AND WMP NO. 48944 OF 2025,WMP NO. 48945 OF 2025
1. Milton Arokkiyasamy S/o.Arokkiyasamy, No.3/115, Bajanai Kovil Street, Arambakkam, Kancheepuram-601 301.
Petitioner(s) Vs
1. The Commissioner Of Prohibition And Excise, 2nd Floor, Ezhilagam Building, Chepauk, Chennai-600 005.
2.The District Collector Kancheepuram District, Kancheepuram.
3.The District Manager Tasmac Kancheepuram (north) Kancheepuram District.
4.The Inspector Of Police T-10 Manimangalam Police Station, Manimangalam Circle, Tambaram
Police District.
Respondent(s) PRAYER calling for the records of the 2nd respondent, proceedings Na.Ka. No.141/ 2025 V1, dated 15.07.2025 and the 3rd respondent issued order Na.Ka. No.4471/A1/ 2025, dated 27.10.2025 and quash the same direct the respondents to relocate the TASMAC Shop No.4471-I in a building situated in S.No.190/9, Salamangalam Village, Kundrathur Taluk, Kancheepuram District For Petitioner(s):
P.Arumuga Rajan For Respondent:
Mr. P. Balathandayutham Special Government Pleader for R1, R2 and R4 Mr. K. Balakrishnan Standing Counsel for R3 Mr. K. Selvaraj for Building Owner
ORDER
This case was disposed of on 12.11.2025. Even before the order dictated could be signed and uploaded, there was a mention by Mr. Selvaraj, learned counsel for one, Ms. Kala, the owner of the building where the aforesaid TASMAC shop has been located. Therefore, the order was not signed and
uploaded. Operative portion of the order that was made ready reads as under: " 7. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent and considering the fact that mere closure/suspension of the shop would not result in any direct loss to the 3rd respondent, in so far as the sale of liquor products are concerned, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the Commissioner to consider the representation dated 06.11.2025 which is part of the typed set as an appeal of the petitioner under Rule 9-A of the aforesaid Rule and dispose the same on merits within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Pending such exercise, the Vending and sale of liquor products from the TASMAC shop shall be kept in abeyance."
2. Having heard Mr. P. Balathandayutham, learned Special Government Pleader for R1, R2 and R4 and Mr. K. Balakrishnan, learned Standing Counsel for R3 and Mr. K. Selvaraj, learned counsel who appears on behalf of one R. Kala, the owner of the building where the subject TASMAC is located, I am of
the view that the impugned order dated 12.11.2025 does not merit any revision. Suffice it to state that in case, the representation of the petitioner which is directed to be considered as an appeal by the first respondent / the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise and dispose on merits. Liberty is granted to the TASMAC as well as the owner of the building, viz., R. Kala to recover such losses which they may have sustained due to stoppage of the operation. All the parties shall be heard. Therefore, in the punitive paragraph of the order dated 12.11.2025 in W.P.No.43827 of 2025, the aforesaid passage shall be inserted.
21-11-2025 Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes ab To 1.The Commissioner Of Prohibition And Excise, 2nd Floor, Ezhilagam Building, Chepauk, Chennai-600 005.
2.The District Collector Kancheepuram District, Kancheepuram.
3.The District Manager Tasmac Kancheepuram (north) Kancheepuram District.
4.The Inspector Of Police T-10 Manimangalam Police Station, Manimangalam Circle, Tambaram Police District.
C.SARAVANAN J.
ab 21-11-2025