← Library
Madras High CourtWP(MD)/15978/2026disposed of

T.Senthilkumar v. The District Manager

2026-06-12Honourable Mr Justice D.Bharatha Chakravarthy5 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated: 12.06.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY and W.M.P(MD)No.11970 of 2026 T.Senthilkumar ... Petitioner(s) - Vs. - The District Manager, District Manager Office, Tasmac Limited, Ramanathapuram District.

... Respondent(s) Prayer : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court Writ Petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the proceedings in Na.Ka.No.A3/0750/2025 dated 02.06.2026 on the file of the respondent, quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law, and consequently direct the respondent to reopen TASMAC shop No. 6808 and permit the petitioner to continue the operation of the bar and pass such further or other orders as this Honble court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of this case and thus render justice.

For Petitioner :Mr.AK.Gopalan For Respondent :Mr.S.Sivanesan Standing Counsel

ORDER

This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 20.06.2026. By the said order the TASMAC retail outlet located in Jeeva Nagar, Paramakudi, is ordered to be closed. 2.The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the shop in question is located in an ideal place and there is no any school or place of worship or residential locality, nearby and it is located amidst the Karuvelam trees. There was no any problem with the said shop. Arbitrarily, the said shop is chosen for closure. When the other shops which are close to the place of worship, schools, etc are being run, this shop is arbitrarily closed. The petitioner is the licensee having legitimate expectation to run the business.

3.I have also heard the learned counsel appearing on

behalf of the respondents.

4.With reference to the issue on hand, this Court, in a batch of matters in in W.P(MD)No.14245 of 2026 etc,(Rajesh Kannan Vs. The Secretary and others) had considered all the aspects including the question of arbitrariness, wrongful selection for closure, the legitimate expectation and the right of the petitioners who are the licensees to sell snacks and collect bottles etc, and rejected the claim of the petitioner, however directed the TASMAC to consider and refund if any excess sum that is collected towards the license fee beyond the period of closure and to return the deposit if any.

5.In view thereof, this writ petition is disposed of on the same terms, rejecting the prayer made by the petitioner and directing the respondents to consider the representation of the

petitioner with reference to refund of excess fee, if any paid and deposit, lying with the respondents. Similarly, the representation of the petitioner, with reference to the closure of shops which are violate the siting criteria shall also be considered by the respondents and orders in writing be passed within a period of 12 weeks from today. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

12.06.2026 NCC:Yes/No Ns To The District Manager, District Manager Office, Tasmac Limited, Ramanathapuram District.

D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.

Ns

and W.M.P(MD)No.11970 of 2026 12.06.2026