1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED :01.12.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA W.P.(MD)No.13782 of 2011 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2011 K.Kannappan .. Petitioner vs. 1.The District Collector, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai. 2.The District Manager, (TASMAC), Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd., Sivagangai, Sivagangai District. .. Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus forbearing the second respondent from shifting the Wine Shop No.7714 from the petitioner's building situated at No.1483, Madurai-Thondi Main Road, Opp. MPTC Shed, Sivagangai. For Petitioner : Mr.V.Kannan For R-2 : Mr.M.Muniasamy ORDER This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for a Mandamus forbearing the second respondent from shifting the Wine Shop No.7714 from the petitioner's building situated at No.1483, Madurai- Thondi Main Road, Opp. MPTC Shed, Sivagangai. 2. Heard Mr.V.Kannan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.M.Muniasamy, learned counsel for the second respondent. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the owner of the building in which Wine Shop No.7714 is given licence to run for a period of five years with effect from 03.11.2003, without giving any disturbance to the public. When there has been an agreement between the petitioner and the second respondent and as per the agreement, the wine shop No.7714 was given permission to continue in the petitioner's building, on or before completion of the said period, the second respondent cannot shift the shop to some other premises. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner is that the second respondent before shifting the wine shop, he should have obtained prior permission from the District Collector, but in the present case, the District Collector has not given any permission. Therefore, the shifting of the said wine shop from the petitioner's building to any other place cannot be permitted. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 4. The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent submits that the shifting of wine shop was necessitated due to heavy objections from the public. Only after receipt of written objection, the second respondent has decided to shift the wine shop from the petitioner's building. 5. In view of the above submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent, it is not permissible to run the wine shop in the petitioner's building. The second respondent's decision to shift the wine shop in question from the petitioner's building to another place on the basis of public objection, cannot be interfered with by this Court. Accordingly, this Writ petition is dismissed. No Costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (RTI) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) To 1.The District Collector, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai. 2.The District Manager, (TASMAC), Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd., Sivagangai, Sivagangai District. +1cc to Mr.V.Kannan, Advocate, SR.No.42388 pm GH : 16.12.2011 : 2p/4c W.P.(MD)No.13782 of 2011 01.12.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/