Pandiyan V v. The District Collector
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 05.01.2026
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G. JAYACHANDRAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K. RAMAKRISHNAN and W.M.P.(MD)No.20144 of 2025 V.Pandiyan ... Petitioner Vs.
1.The District Collector, Dindigul District, Dindigul.
2.The Assistant Commissioner, Prohibition and Excise Department, Dindigul.
3.The District Manager, Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Limited (TASMAC), Dindigul, Dindigul District.
4.The Executive Officer, Nilakottai Panchayat Office, Nilakottai, Dindigul District.
... Respondents PRAYER:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records 1/5
pertaining to the impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent in Na.Ka. No.000030/2024/A-8 dated 25.08.2025, and quash the same, and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 3 to close or shift the TASMAC situated at SF Nos.513/A and 514/4A nearby SH155 State Highways, Nilakottai, Nilakottai Taluk, Dindigul District. For Petitioner : No Appearance For Respondents : Mr.P.Thilakkumar (R1, R2 & R4) Government Pleader Mr.H.Arumugam (R3)
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.) The petitioner herein being aggrieved by the location of the TASMAC shop near SH-155, State Highways, Nilakottai, Nilakottai Taluk, Dindigul District, gave a representation dated 17.03.2025 to the District Collector and other authorities for shifting the TASMAC shop, which according to him falls within the restricted distance. This Court in W.P.(MD)No.9557 of 2025 directed the authorities to consider the said representation and pass appropriate orders within a period of twelve weeks. It appears that the third respondent, District Manager, TASMAC has considered the representation and rejected the request for shifting the TASMAC shop. Hence, the present writ petition is filed by the petitioner 2/5
seeking certiorarified mandamus to quash the impugned order passed by the District Manager, TASMAC vide order dated 25.08.2025. 2.According to the writ petitioner, the competent authority to shift the TASMAC shop is the District Collector. However, the representation of the petitioner seeking to shift the TASMAC shop has been considered and rejected by the District Manager, TASMAC, who is not the competent authority.
3.This Court called for the file to find out whether the submission made by the petitioner is correct. On perusing the records, we find that the representation had never been considered by the District Collector, who is the competent authority to decide the location of TASMAC shop.
4.For the said reason, the order passed by the third respodnent dated 25.08.2025 is set aside and the writ petition stands allowed. The representation of the petitioner dated 17.03.2025 be considered by the District Collector, Dindigul and appropriate orders be passed taking into consideration the provisions of The Tamil Nadu Liquor Retail Vending 3/5
(in Shops and Bars) Rules, 2003 within a period of four weeks from today (05.01.2026). Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs. [G.J., J.] & [K.K.R.K., J.] 05.01.2026 Index :Yes/No Internet :Yes ta To 1.The District Collector, Dindigul District, Dindigul.
2.The Assistant Commissioner, Prohibition and Excise Department, Dindigul.
3.The Executive Officer, Nilakottai Panchayat Office, Nilakottai, Dindigul District.
4/5
DR.
G. JAYACHANDRAN , J.
AND K.K. RAMAKRISHNAN, J.
ta 05.01.2026 5/5