IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATE : 04 .03.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. M.Y.EQBAL, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM W.P. NO. 80 OF 2010 A.Thirumaran .. Petitioner - Vs - 1. The Inspector of Police Law & Order B-2, Esplanade Police Station Esplanade, Chennai. 2. The District Collector Chennai District Singaravelar Maaligai North Beach Road Chennai. 3. The Chairperson TASMAC Ltd., Secretariat Fort St. George Chennai 600 009. 4. The Managing Director TASMAC Ltd., 4th Floor CMDA Tower – II Egmore, Chennai 600 008. 5. District Manager Chennai (North) IMFS Depot TASMAC Ltd., TASCO Unit, B4 Flats Industrial Estate, Ambattur Chennai. 6. M. Jayaprakash (Shop No.111) Bar Licensee TASMAC Retail Outlet No.111 Sunkurama Street Chennai 600 001. .. Respondents (R-6 impleaded as per order Dated 6.1.2010) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying this Court to issue a Writ of mandamus directing the respondents to shift the TASMAC Retail Shop No.111 situated at Sunkurama Street, Chennai 600 001. For Petitioner : Dr. G.Krishnamurthi For Respondents:Mr.J.Raja Kalifulla, Govt.Pleader, assisted by Ms. M.Sneha, Govt. Advocate for RR-1 & 2 Mr. J.Ravindran for RR-3 to 5 Mr. A.Jenasenan for R-6 ORDER The Hon’ble Chief Justice and T.S.Sivagnanam, J. In this writ petition, filed in the nature of public interest litigation, the petitioner, who is a practising advocate, seeks a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to shift the Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd., (for short “TASMAC”) Retail Shop No.111 situated at Sunkurama Street, Chennai – 1. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the shop is located just opposite to his office, which is causing lot of public nuisance. The petitioner filed numerous representations to all the respondents enclosing photographs, but no action has been taken. According to the petitioner, Sunkurama Street is a commercial area having many commercial establishments and is a very busy locality. In the commercial establishments situated in the said street, many women are employed and they have to pass through the said TASMAC outlet, wherein many persons are in an intoxicated condition, which creates fear in the mind of the people using the said street. It is alleged that Sunkurama Street is a very narrow street and the outlet is supplied goods by the use of trucks and lorries, which creates traffic congestion. Many advocates have their office in and around the TASMAC shop and due to that two wheelers are parked nearby the said shop. It is therefore contended that the said shop creates public nuisance and, therefore, it needs to be shifted to some other place. 3. The 5th respondent, in its counter affidavit, has stated that the above said TASMAC shop in the said street is functioning for more than 25 years. It is further stated that the shop is not situated within the prohibitory distance as contemplated under Rule 8 of the Tamil Nadu Liquor Retail Vending (in Shops and Bars) Rules, 2003. It is further stated that the High Court, Law College and Bar Council of Tamil Nadu are located far away from the shop and beyond the prohibited distance. It is further stated that due licence has been granted for running the bar, which also has https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ parking facilities for its customers and that decency and decorum is being maintained in the bar. 4. The 6th respondent, who is the licensee, in his counter affidavit has stated that the licence to run the shop was granted as back as in the year 1985 and since then the 6th respondent is running his business. However, in the year 2003, the Government took over the retail vending of liquor, and since then a wine shop has been running in the said premises for the last 25 years, without any complaint from the general public. It is submitted that this petition is purely a private interest litigation and no public interest is involved in it. 5. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record. 6. At the very outset we are constrained to express our view in the light of supreme court decisions with regard to the scope of a writ petition, which is filed in the nature of ‘Public Interest Litigation’. The term ‘Public Interest’ literally means a matter of public or general interest and does not mean that which is interesting as gratifying curiosity or a love of information or amusement but that in which a class of the community have a pecuniary interest, or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected. When there is material to show that a petition is styled as a ‘Public Interest Litigation’ is nothing but a camaflogue to foster personal disputes, such petition should not be entertained. In the case of Ashok Kumar Pandey – Vs – State of West Bengal & Ors. (AIR 2004 SC 280), the Supreme Court observed as under :- “12. Public interest litigation is a weapon which has to be used with great care and circumspection and the judiciary has to be extremely careful to see that behind the beautiful veil of public interest an ugly private malice, vested interest and/or publicity-seeking is not lurking. It is to be used as an effective weapon in the armory of law for delivering social justice to the citizens. The attractive brand name of public interest litigation should not be allowed to be used for suspicious products of mischief. It should be aimed at redressal of genuine public wrong or public injury and not publicity- oriented or founded on personal vendetta. As indicated above, courts must be careful to see that a body of persons or member of public, who approaches the court is acting bona fide and not for personal gain or private motive or political motivation or other oblique consideration. The court must not allow its process to be abused for oblique considerations by masked phantoms who monitor at times from behind. Some persons with vested interest https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ indulge in the pastime of meddling with judicial process either by force of habit or from improper motives and try to bargain for a good deal as well to enrich themselves. Often they are actuated by a desire to win notoriety or cheap popularity. The petitions of such busybodies deserve to be thrown out by rejection at the threshold, and in appropriate cases with exemplary costs.” 7. In the case of R & M Trust – Vs – Koramangala Residents Vigilance Group & Ors (2005 (3) SCC 91), the Supreme Court observed as under :- “24. Public interest litigation is no doubt a very useful handle for redressing the grievances of the people but unfortunately lately it has been abused by some interested persons and it has brought a very bad name. Courts should be very very slow in entertaining petitions involving public interest: in very rare cases where the public at large stand to suffer. This jurisdiction is meant for the purpose of coming to the rescue of the downtrodden and not for the purpose of serving private ends. It has now become common for unscrupulous people to serve their private ends and jeopardize the rights of innocent people so as to wreak vengeance for their personal ends. This has become very handy to the developers and in matters of public contracts. In order to serve their professional rivalry they utilize the service of the innocent people or organization in filing public interest litigation. The courts are sometimes persuaded to issue certain directions without understanding the implications and giving a handle in the hands of the authorities to misuse it. Therefore, the courts should not exercise this jurisdiction lightly but should exercise in very rare and few cases involving public interest of a large number of people who cannot afford litigation and are made to suffer at the hands of the authorities. The parameters have already been laid down in a decision of this Court in the case of Balco Employees’ Union (Regd.) v. Union of India wherein this Court has issued guidelines as to what kind of public interest litigation should be entertained and all the previous cases were reviewed by this Court. It was observed as under: “77. Public interest litigation, or PIL as it is more commonly known, entered the Indian judicial process in 1970. It will not https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ be incorrect to say that it is primarily the judges who have innovated this type of litigation as there was a dire need for it. At that stage, it was intended to vindicate public interest where fundamental and other rights of the people who were poor, ignorant or in socially or economically disadvantageous position and were unable to seek legal redress were required to be espoused. PIL was not meant to be adversarial in nature and was to be a cooperative and collaborative effort of the parties and the court so as to secure justice for the poor and the weaker sections of the community who were not in a position to protect their own interests. Public interest litigation was intended to mean nothing more than what words themselves said viz. ‘litigation in the interest of the public’. 78. While PIL initially was invoked mostly in cases connected with the relief to the people and the weaker sections of the society and in areas where there was violation of human rights under Article 21, but with the passage of time, petitions have been entertained in other spheres, Prof. S.B. Sathe has summarized the extent of the jurisdiction which has now been exercised in the following words: ‘PIL may, therefore, be described as satisfying one or more of the following parameters. These are not exclusive but merely descriptive: — Where the concerns underlying a petition are not individualist but are shared widely by a large number of people (bonded labour, undertrial prisoners, prison inmates). — Where the affected persons belong to the disadvantaged sections of society (women, children, bonded labour, unorganized labour etc.). — Where judicial law-making is necessary to avoid exploitation (inter- country adoption, the education of the children of prostitutes). — Where judicial intervention is necessary for the protection of the sanctity of democratic institutions (independence of the judiciary, existence of grievances redressal forums). — Where admin’ https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 79. There is, in recent years, a feeling which is not without any foundation that public interest litigation is now tending to become publicity interest litigation or private interest litigation and has a tendency to be counterproductive. 80. PIL is not a pill or a panacea for all wrongs. It was essentially meant to protect basic human rights of the weak and the disadvantaged and was a procedure which was innovated where a public-spirited person files a petition in effect on behalf of such persons who on account of poverty, helplessness or economic and social disabilities could not approach the court for relief. There have been in recent times, increasingly instances of abuse of PIL. Therefore, there is a need to re-emphasize the parameters within which PIL can be resorted to by a petitioner and entertained by the court. This aspect has come up for consideration before this Court and all we need to do is to recapitulate and re- emphasize the same.” 8. Coming back to the instant case, it is not the case of the petitioner that the TASMAC retail vending shop in question is functioning in utter violation of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937 or Tamil Nadu Liquor Retail Vending (in Shops and Bars) Rules, 2003. Nor is the case of the petitioner that the said shop in question is located near to any school, religious place or hospital. According to Section 8(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937 and the Tamil Nadu Liquor Retail Vending (in Shops and Bars) Rules, 2003 no shop shall be established in Municipal Corporation or Municipalities within a distance of 50 meters and in other areas 100 meters from any place of worship or educational institution. The proviso says that the distance restriction shall not apply in any area designated as commercial or industrial by the Town Planning Authorities. Similarly, the distance norms are not applicable in the establishment of wine shop in a commercial area. Therefore, we can safely infer that the respondents are not running the shop without following any of the provisions of the relevant Act and the Rules made thereunder. The petitioner in the writ petition has mainly contended that the shop is located just opposite to his office, which is causing public nuisance. However, it is admitted by the petitioner that the shop is located in the commercial area. Despite these facts, the petitioner has given the colour of public interest to his writ petition. In our considered opinion, the writ petition cannot and shall not be treated as PIL inasmuch as no public interest is involved, if a wine shop is established in a commercial area in accordance with the provisions https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ of the Act and the Rules. This writ petition, having no merits, is therefore dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Sd/- Asst.Registrar. /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar. GLN Copy to:- 1. The Inspector of Police Law & Order, B-2, Esplanade Police Station, Chennai. 2. The District Collector Chennai District, Singaravelar Maaligai North Beach Road, Chennai. 3. The Chairperson TASMAC Ltd., Secretariat Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009. 4. The Managing Director TASMAC Ltd., 4th Floor CMDA Tower – II, Egmore, Chennai 600 008. 5. District Manager Chennai (North) IMFS Depot TASMAC Ltd., TASCO Unit, B4 Flats Industrial Estate, Ambattur Chennai. 1 cc to Dr. G. Krishnamurthy, Advocate, Sr. 15961 1 cc to Mr.J. Ravindran, Advocate, Sr. 15820 1 cc to Mr.A. Jenasenan, Advocate, Sr. 16087 1 cc to Government Pleader, Sr. 16104 W.P.No.80 of 2010. VS (CO) kk 22/3 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/