Pugalendhi v. The District Collector

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 28.07.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN Pugalendhi ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The District Collector, District Collector Office Campus, 2.The Assistant Commissioner, Prohibition Enforcement Division, Collector Office Campus, 3.The Zonal Excise Officer, Prohibition Enforcement Division, 4.The Inspector of Police, Prohibition Enforcement Division,

...Respondents

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned notice Na.Ka.A.1/078/2025 dated 10.06.2025 issued by the third respondent quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the first respondent not to shift the liquor vending shop No.6613 from the existing place.

1/6

For Petitioner : M/s.A.Banumathy For R1 to R3 : Mr.C.Satheesh Government Advocate For R4 : Mr.K.Sanjai Gandhi Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

ORDER

The petitioner has challenged the impugned order passed by the third respondent dated 10.06.2025, whereby, the objections of the petitioner dated 02.06.2025 was rejected.

2. The allegation of the petitioner is that a TASMAC shop has been shifted to a site near the State Highway at S.No.107/11, Regunathapuram,

3. It is the case of the petitioner is that the new TASMAC shop is being put up contrary to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of the State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Babu reported in (2017) 2 SCC 281 and the presence of liquor bar near Highway residential colony resulting in public nuisance under Section 268 of the IPC (270 of BNS Act, 2023).

4. It is noticed that after the impugned order passed by the third respondent on 10.06.2025 rejecting the objections of the petitioner dated 2/6

02.06.2025, the petitioner had escalated the issue before the Commissioner. The Commissioner vide proceedings dated 27.06.2025 bearing reference e.f.e 3287506/2025/N[2 has given a clear finding to the effect that the bar is away from the State Highway. The relevant portion of the aforesaid order reads as under:

3/6

5. On a specific query regarding the distance between the petitioner's house and the new bar near the State Highway at S.No.107/11, Regunathapuram, Pudukkottai District, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the distance is hardly 500 meters.

6. Although the respondents are not in violation of either decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court or the Rules governing for setting up of the TASMAC shop, the petitioner's grievance may be reconsidered by the first respondent, considering the fact that the new TASMAC shop is nearing the residential houses and can cause inconvenience to the elders, ladies and also may have adverse influence on the young ones in the vicinity.

7. Under these circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the first respondent to reconsider the decision dated 27.06.2025 bearing reference e.f.e 3287506/2025/N[2 within a period of five weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order after considering the above factor. No costs.

28.07.2025 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No sn 4/6

To 1.The District Collector, District Collector Office Campus, 2.The Assistant Commissioner, Prohibition Enforcement Division, Collector Office Campus, 3.The Zonal Excise Officer, Prohibition Enforcement Division, 4.The Inspector of Police, Prohibition Enforcement Division, 5/6

C.SARAVANAN, J.

sn W.P(MD).No.20478 of 2025 28.07.2025 6/6