Ravi A v. The District Collector

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENGH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 04.12.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY W.P.(MD)No.34996 of 2025 A.Ravi ... Petitioner Vs

1. The District Collector, O/o. the District Collector, Trichy District.

2. The Senior Regional Manager, Tamilnadu State Marketing Corporation Limited, District Collector Office, Old Building First Floor, DRO Chamber, Tiruchirappalli District.

3. The District Manager, Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Limited, 72, C.P.3, SIDCO Estate, BHEL Nagar, Thuvakudi, Tiruchirappalli - 620 015.

... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to reopen and permit operation of TASMAC Retail Vending Shop No.10523 situated at Door No.1/75, Survey No.377/8C1B, Alundur Village, Srirangam Taluk, Tiruchirappallil District by considering the petitioner's 1/5

representation dated 26.11.2025 within the time frame fixed by this Court.

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Mohamed Riyaz For R-1 : Ms.K.Malathi, Additional Government Pleader For R-2 & R-3 : Mr.S.Sivanesan

O R D E R

This Writ Petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondents to reopen and permit operation of TASMAC Retail Vending Shop No.10523 situated at Door No.1/75, Survey No.377/8C1B, Alundur Village, Srirangam Taluk, Tiruchirappalli District, by considering the petitioner's representation dated 26.11.2025 within the time frame to be fixed by this Court.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that the Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Limited (TASMAC), represented by its District Manager, Trichy, entered into a lease agreement with the petitioner for running Retail Vending Shop No.10523 in the petitioner's premises. The 2/5

said shop was duly authorized and functioned lawfully and peacefully for more than seven years, contributing significant revenue to the State and rent to the petitioner, without any violation, complaint or objection. However, to the shock of the petitioner, the said TASMAC shop was abruptly closed without issuing any prior notice. Hence, the petitioner made a representation to the respondents requesting to reopen the shop. Since no action has been taken by the respondents till date, the present Writ Petition has been filed.

3. The learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.3 and 4 would submit that due to public agitation, the respondents closed the shop functioning in the petitioner's premises and, therefore, they are not in a position to continue the licence in the said premises.

4. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.3 and 4, this Court finds force in the same. Since the closure of the shop was on account of public agitation, this Court does not find any merit in the present Writ Petition seeking reopening of the shop.

3/5

5. The remedy available to the petitioner, if so advised, is to claim compensation from TASMAC for the loss allegedly sustained and not to seek reopening of the shop in the face of public agitation.

6. In view of the above, this Writ Petition stands dismissed. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to make an appropriate representation to the respondents to claim compensation for the loss, if any, sustained by the petitioner, in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs.

04.12.2025 Index : Yes/No Internet: Yes/No TSG To The District Collector, O/o. the District Collector, Trichy District.

4/5

KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J.

TSG W.P.(MD)No.34996 of 2025 04.12.2025 5/5