Chandrasekar .L v. The District Collector
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 20.12.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVEL and W.M.P.(MD)No.26246 of 2023 L.Chandrasekar : Petitioner Vs.
1.The District Collector, Office of the Collectorate, Sivagangai.
2.The District Manager, TamilNadu State Marketing Corporation (TASMAC), Pala Malai Nagar, Thondi Road, Sivagangai, Sivagangai District.
3.The Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Ilayangudi, Sivagangai District.
: Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1/8
herein not to locate any new proposed TASMAC shop in S.No.28/9, 28/15 in Thayamangalam Village, Ilayangudi Taluk, Sivagangai in the petitioner's Village on the basis of petitioner's representation dated 11.12.2023.
For Petitioner : Mr.D.Senthil For Respondents 1&3 : Mr.P.Thilak Kumar Government Pleader For Respondent No.2 : Mr.H.Arumugam Standing Counsel
O R D E R
************ [Order of the Court was made by M.SUNDAR, J.] Captioned 'Writ Petition' [hereinafter 'WP' for the sake of brevity] has been filed in this Court on 18.12.2023 as a 'Public Interest Litigation' [hereinafter 'PIL' for the sake of brevity]. 2.Short facts [shorn of granular particulars] are that the PIL petitioner is concerned about the proposed location of 'TASMAC Shop No.7641' [hereinafter 'said shop' for the sake of convenience]; that TASMAC is an abbreviation which stands for 'Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation'; that said shop is now situate at S.No.125/4, Patta No.139, K.Narayanamangalam Village and it is proposed to be shifted to S.No.2/9, Patta No.876, Thayamangalam Village; that the PIL petitioner has sent a 2/8
'representation dated 11.12.2023' [hereinafter 'said representation' for the sake of convenience] raising certain objections regarding the proposed location ie., S.Nos.28/9 and 28/15 in Thayamangalam Village, Ilayangudi Taluk, Sivagangai District; that captioned WP has been filed with a Mandamus prayer qua said representation. 3.Before proceeding further, we deem it appropriate to scan and set out the said representation as placed before us, we do so and the same is as follows:
3/8
4.Issue notice.
5.Mr.P.Thilak Kumar, learned Government Pleader accepts notice for respondents 1 and 3. Mr.H.Arumugam, learned Standing Counsel for TASMAC accepts notice for second respondent. 4/8
6.It was pointed out by learned Government Pleader as well as learned Standing Counsel for TASMAC that said representation does not point out any violation qua 'the Tamil Nadu Liquor Retail Vending [In Shops and Bars] Rules, 2003' [hereinafter 'said Rules' for the sake of convenience]. It was also pointed out that the said Rules is a piece of Subordinate Legislation made by the Executive Arm in exercising of Rule making powers in the Parent Act ie., 'The Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937' [hereinafter 'said Act' for the sake of convenience].
7.In the light of the amendment to Rule 9 of said Rules, which kicked in on 13.02.2022, we deem it appropriate to not to delve into the controversy and relegate the matter to the first respondent.
8.To be noted, Rule 9 of said Rules is captioned 'Shifting of shop' and the same together with proviso thereat reads as follows:
'9.Shifting of shop.- There shall be no change in the location of shops except with the previous permission of the Collector.
[Provided that no such permission shall be given by the Collector unless representation received, if any, objecting to the change in location of the shop, is considered and orders passed thereon.]'
It is further to be noted that the proviso kicked in on 13.02.2022. 5/8
9.In the light of the narrative thus far, we dispose of the captioned WP by saying that the first respondent shall consider the aforementioned said representation and pass orders on the same vide proviso to Rule 9 of said Rules and thereafter either grant or refuse permission for shifting of said shop vide Rule 9 of said Rules. 10.We also find that any orders made by the first respondent under Rule 9 is appealable under Rule (9-A) but we deem it appropriate to not to delve into the same in this order. 11.Captioned WP is disposed of with the aforementioned simple directive making it clear that we have not expressed any view or opinion on the merits of the matter much less on the objections and the contention that the objections do not point out any violation of said Rules. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, captioned WMP is also disposed of as closed. [M.S.,J.] & [R.S.V.,J.] 20.12.2023 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No MR 6/8
To 1.The Superintendent of Police, Trichirappalli District.
2.The Inspector of Police, Vaiyampatti Police Station, Manapparai, Trichirappalli District.
7/8
M.SUNDAR, J.
and R.SAKTHIVEL, J.
MR ORDER MADE IN 20.12.2023 8/8