IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 02.08.2010 CORAM: THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE K.B.K.VASUKI W.P.No.3134 of 2010 and MP.Nos.2, 3 and 6 of 2010 S.Ganesan .. Petitioner Vs. 1.The District Manager, Tasmac Ltd., No.14-18, SIPCOT Industrial Estate, Kancheepuram District, Kancheepuram-631 502. 2.General Manager, Tasmac Ltd., Egmore, Chennai – 600 008. 3.The Collector, Office of the Collector, Kancheepuram. 4.N.Govindan .. Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition is filed under article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the order/Notice passed by the 1st respondent in Ref.No.Na.Ka.No.420/2009/R7 wrongly dated as 08.02.2009 but signed by the 1st respondent on 08.02.2010 directing the petitioner to find out a suitable place to locate the Tasmac shop within two weeks and the order dated 08.03.2010 passed in Ref.No.Na.Ka.No.129/2010/R-2 and to quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.S.R.Manickavel For Respondents : Mr.J.Ravindran-R1 and R2 Mr.V.Viswanathan, AGP-R3 Mr.V.Babu-R4 ORDER The writ petition is directed against the order of the first respondent in his ref.No.Na.No.420/2009-R7 wrongly dated as 08.02.2009 signed on 08.02.2010 and order dated 08.03.2010 passed in ref.No.Na.Ka.En.129/2010-R2 in and under which the petitioner was directed to file suitable place to shift IMFL shop No.4376 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ situated in Door.No.6, GST Road, Tambaram Sanatorium under licence No.Na.489/06-R6 dated 02.12.2009 and on his failure to do so cancelled his bar licence w.e.f. 08.03.2010. 2. The petitioner herein is the holder of bar license in respect of IMFL.RV shop No.4376 which was originally located at one of the buildings situated at Ponniamman Koil street, Kavanthandalam Village, Uthiramerur Taluk, belonging to one Thiru.G.Nagappan and as the owner of the building insisted for vacant possession of the property, the shop was proposed to be shifted to Avalur Village, Kannadian Kudimai. As the residents of the particular village along with their Panchayat president raised serious objection to locate the shop in the said place, the shop was temporarily closed. Thereafter, the present building by Door.No.6, GST Road, Tambaram Sanatorium was at the instance of the petitioner herein who is the lessee under the owner of the property Thiru. Ekambaram, inspected to ascertain the suitability and the same was duly inspected by the authority concerned and was according to the officials concerned, found to be suitable and well within the norms and was hence selected for the location of the shop. 3. While so, the third Respondent herein filed W.P.No.24170 of 2009 for the writ of mandamus forbearing the Managing director CMDA Tower-II from in any any manner establishing a retailed vending IMFL shop at first street Kamatchi Colony, Tambaram Sanatorium mainly on the ground that the proposed building is opposite to Tambaram Sanatorium and within the prohibited distance of 50 meters from the hospital, School, Colleges and temples, as such the proposed location is in violation of the guidelines issued by the Government in this regard. 4. Our High Court has disposed of the writ petition by order dated 21.12.2009 thereby directing the first respondent-District manager, TASMAC ltd., to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 19.11.2009 and to pass orders on the same before locating any shop near Tambaram Sanatorium. Our High Court has in paras 2 and 3 respectively of its order referred to the ground on which the location of the shop is opposed and stand taken on the side of the Government that no shop has been opened in the Tambaram Sanatorium near hospital and schools and thereafter proceeded to dispose of of the WP with the observation as above referred. 5. In the mean time the bar licence was issued to the petitioner herein by order dated 02.12.2009 and the petitioner commence his business in the same building, however, in pursuance of the order of the High Court dated 02.12.2009 the District Collector issued notice dated 18.09.2009 calling upon both the petitioner and the 3rd respondent herein for personnel hearing and the same is followed by the notice dated 08.02.2010, thereby calling upon the bar licence holder who is the petitioner herein to shift his shop from the present address within 15 days and on the failure of the petitioner to do so, cancelled his bar licence and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the both the orders dated 08.02.2010 and 08.03.2010 are now challenged herein. 6. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the shop is located in the present building after ascertaining the suitability of the same through proper inspection by the TASMAC officials and the place is found to be satisfying all the statutory requirements and was duly recommended for the location of the shop by the first respondent-District Manager, TASMAC in his proceedings dated 20.11.2009 to the second respondent herein as approved by the 3rd Respondent District Collector and the petitioner was duly issued licence on 2.12.2009 after his having satisfactorily complied with all formalities and the building is as per the inspection report of the Deputy Collector-District Manager, TASMAC dated 25.02.2010 District Manager, TASMAC,not situated within the prohibited area and the TB hospital and Sri Rama Anchinayar temple are situated beyond the prohibited area and there is no other reason much less valid reason which renders the building unsuitable for the location of retail vending IMFL shop and the orders impugned herein for shifting the shop mainly on the basis of the allegation of the 3rd respondent which are totally lacking in bonafide and are raised with an intention to harass the petitioner who did not yield to the demand made by the 3rd respondent for payment of Rs.50,000/-, are contrary to the relevant rules and are hence unsustainable. 7. On the other hand, the learned Additional Government Pleader and the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent would seriously oppose the contention raised on the side of the petitioner. It is further contended on the side of the respondents that the impugned order based on the report of the Deputy Commissioner of police setting out more than one valid reason as to why the present place is objectionable to run the IMFL shop. 8. Heard the rival submissions made on both sides and perused the records and the reports of different authorities relating to this issue made available herein. 9. The location of the retail vending IMFL shop at Door.No.6, GST Road, Tambaram Sanatarium is not disputed. The location of the shop in the present place was seriously opposed by the 3rd respondent even much before the issuance of the bar licence to the petitioner by way of writ petition. This court has on earlier occasions directed the authority concerned to consider his application and to pass an order upon the same before permitting the location of the shop in the place in question. Though, such order was passed on 21.12.2009 the petitioner was issued bar licence much earlier on 02.12.2009. Though the factum of the same was not brought to the notice of the High Court on the date on which the final order is passed, the issue was reopened in compliance with the direction of the High Court and the first respondent has called for further reports from police authority and has also fixed personnel hearing and the petitioner and the 3rd https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ respondent were duly called upon to attend the same. 10. The perusal of the records reveals that the recommendation to locate the shop in the present place is at the first instance issued by Deputy Collector-District Manager, TASMAC ltd, on the basis of the report of the officials, who inspected the same to the effect that the building does not suffer from any statutory limitation and the same does satisfy all the statutory requirements etc. One such report was dated 20.11.2009 based on which, the petitioner was, by the same official in his proceedings dt.30.11.2009, called upon to make due deposit and the same was followed by the issuance of licence to the petitioner by the 2nd respondent. 11. It is to be mentioned herein that the same Deputy Collector-District Manager, TASMAC ltd has also forwarded another report to the learned Additional Government Pleader in pursuance of the notice issued in this writ petition. The second report dated 25.02.2010, the copy of the same produced herein is to the same effect that there is no temple or educational institution within the objectionable distance. But the Deputy Collector has admitted the existence of the TB Hospital which is according to him, 64 meters away from the shop. The petitioner would rely upon the reports of the Deputy Collector/District Manger, TASMAC in support of his claim that the shop is located in the unobjectionable area. 12. Whereas the learned Additional Government Pleader and the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent would in support of the correctness of the orders impugned herein rely upon the observation made by our High Court in the earlier writ petition and the report of the Deputy Commissioner of Police. The respondents are thought fit to direct the shifting of the shop mainly on the basis of the report of the Deputy Commissioner of Police dated 03.02.2010 the reading of the same reveals that the IMFL shop is located within 50mts radius of about 50 dwelling houses AIDS and TB Hospital on the opposite side and also Siddha Hospital and one ladies hostel is situated though beyond 50 meters radius but nearby and the shop is just abutting pedestrian cross road. The shop has no bar assistance and the empty bottles, water glasses and waste items are thrown in the Kamatchi colony. The customers who come to shop urinate outside the shop causing nuisance and the place is traffic prone area. The Deputy Commissioner of Police has also suggested that the area is not preferable to have IMFL shop. 13. This report is also supported by the particulars furnished to the 3rd respondent herein on 04.02.2010 by the executive officer Chitlapakkan Panchayat under RTI Act, as per which no building permission was obtained for the construction of the building in question and no permission was obtained to use the same for commercial purpose and no professional tax is paid and only the property tax and professional tax in the name of K.Sekar for running provisional store is paid upto 2008-2009. The particulars https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ further reveal that the distance between the TASMAC shop and TB Hospital main gate entrance is 43mts and one Sri Rama Anchinayar temple is situated within TB hospital-AIDS hospital campus and Siddha medical college is situated next to TB hospital. 14. Thus, though there are more than one reports available regarding the location particulars in and around TASMAC shop and though the reports of Deputy Collector/District Manager, TASMAC Ltd., are in favour of the petitioner herein the other report of Deputy commissioner of Police which is obtained in compliance with the order of the High Court and the particulars furnished to the third respondent by the Executive Officer under RTI Act do not support the suitability of the building in question for the location of the TASMAC shop. This court is inclined to place more reliance on the last two documents above referred to, which would definitely point out that the location of the shop is not only within the prohibited area in violation with the statutory rules but also causing nuisance to the public particularly the patients who are undergoing treatment in TB-AIDS hospital and Siddha Hospital and also to the visitors who come to see the patients. In that event, the petitioner cannot be heard to raise any grievance against the orders impugned herein. 15. Further, it is note worthy to mention that it is mandatory requirement to display on the sign board installed in the shops in bold letters about the evils of drinking through the slogans "kJ ? ehl;Lf;F tPl;Lf;F. capUf;F nfL" "Liquor - ruins Country, family and life". The same is applicable to the suitability of the place in which the shop is to be located and it is more appropriate not to allow it nearer hospital particularly the hospital treating the deceases like TB and AIDS which requires more congenial serene and hygienic atmosphere for speedy recovery of the patients suffering the same. The general interest of the public is the paramount consideration before undertaking any administrative decision by the Government and the same in my opinion, warrants shifting of the shop to any other place. As a matter of fact one of the conditions subject to which the license issued is to the effect that the authority can order shifting of the shop on administrative reasons and to cancel the licence by giving 15 days time and in the event of shifting order, the licence stands automatically cancelled. The tender notification containing such clauses is enclosed at page 6 of the typed set of papers. That being the factual state of affairs, this court does not find any irregularity or infirmity in the orders of the first respondent, impugned herein and there is no ground much less valid reason available to the petitioner to question the validity of the impugned orders and he has no option but to comply with it. As such the petitioner is dis-entitled to get any relief herein. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 16. In the result, the writ petition fails. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar tsh To 1.The District Manager, Tasmac Ltd., No.14-18, SIPCOT Industrial Estate, Kancheepuram District, Kancheepuram-631 502. 2.General Manager, Tasmac Ltd., Egmore, Chennai – 600 008. 3.The Collector, Office of the Collector, Kacnheepuram. +2ccs to Mr.R.Manickavel,Advocate Sr 56414 +1cc to Mr.J.Ravindran, Advocate Sr 56459 +1cc to Mr.V.Babu,Advocate Sr 56637 BVR(CO) km/31.8. WP.No.3134 of 2010 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/