1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED :01.12.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA W.P.(MD)No.13747 of 2011 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2011 N.manimaruthu .. Petitioner Vs. 1.The District Collector, Madurai District, Madurai. 2.The Senior Regional Manager, Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation (TASMAC), Annanagar, Near TNHB Community Hall, Madurai-20. 3.The District Manager, Tamill Nadu State Marketing Corporation, Madurai, Madurai District. 4.The Assistant Commissioner(Excise), Madurai District Collector Office Campus, Madurai. .. Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the first respondent Na.Ka.No.49769/2011 kJ - 1 dated 16.11.2011 and quash the same as illegal and consequently directing the first and third respondents to permit the petitioner to shift the shop No.5220, Madurai from current location to proposed location of No.103-104, patta No.431, Anuppanadi, Theppakulam, Madurai and to run the bar in the premises of shop No.5220 as per license given by the third respondent. For Petitioner : Mr.S.K.Patturaja For Respondents : Mr.M.Muniasamy https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 ORDER This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner to quash the order passed by the first respondent Na.Ka.No.49769/2011 kJ - 1 dated 16.11.2011 and to direct the first and third respondents to permit the petitioner to shift the shop No.5220, Madurai from current location to proposed location of No.103-104, patta No.431, Anuppanadi, Theppakulam, Madurai and to run the bar in the premises of shop No.5220 as per license given by the third respondent. 2. Heard Mr.S.K.Patturaja, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.M.Muniasamy, learned counsel for the respondents. 3. The petitioner is the licence holder for selling eatables and collecting empty bottles from the bar annexed with shop No.5220 situated in Survey No.158, Kamarajar Salai, Madurai. Aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the District Collector, Madurai in his proceedings dated 16.11.2011, rejecting the request of the petitioner for shifting of his liquor shop to above mentioned address on the basis of the objection raised by the public, the petitioner has filed this Writ petition. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a licence holder of the liquor shop No.5220 situated at survey No.158, Kamarajar Salai, Madurai. Afer receipt of the licence for running the said shop, the petitioner was not able to produce consent letter from the owner of the building for current location of the shop. However, he was able to produce consent letter for the shop No.5220 for another proposed place which is situated in survey No.103-104 bearing patta No.431, Anuppanadi, Theppakulam, Madurai. Hence, he prayed for shifting of the liquor shop to the proposed place situated in the above mentioned place. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that though initially the request of the petitioner to shift his shop was accepted by the third respondent, on the basis of representation given to the first respondent in the name of Kudiyirupor Nala Sangam, Manickam Nagar not to shift the petitioner's shop in the proposed place bearing survey No.103-104, the request of the petitioner has been declined. Thereafter, the above said sangam has also filed a Writ petition in W.P(MD)No.9277 of 2011 seeking to consider their representation not to shift the above said liquor shop. The petitioner has also filed W.P(MD)No.9969 of 2011 to consider his representation to shift the liquor shop. Both the writ petitions were allowed. In pursuance of the same, the first respondent - District Collector after taking note of the serious objection raised by the petitioner as well as the other objectors reached a conclusion that the shifting of liquor shop to the above mentioned survey No.103-104 bearing patta No.431, Anuppanadi, Theppakulam, Madurai, is objectionable. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 6. In view of the objections, when the District Collector has declined to accept the request for shifting the shop, this Court is of the view that the order passed by the first respondent cannot be interfered with by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Further, I can see that the first respondent - District Collector has also given liberty to the petitioner to mention some other place for shifting his liquor shop. In view of the above, the petitioner has to work out his remedy by finding out some other unobjectionable place which will be acceptable to the first and third respondents. Accordingly, this Writ petition is dismissed. No Costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (RTI) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The District Collector, Madurai District, Madurai. 2.The Senior Regional Manager, Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation (TASMAC), Annanagar, Near TNHB Community Hall, Madurai-20. 3.The District Manager, Tamill Nadu State Marketing Corporation, Madurai, Madurai District. 4.The Assistant Commissioner(Excise), Madurai District Collector Office Campus, Madurai. W.P.(MD)No.13747 of 2011 01.12.2011 pm NSV/9.1.12/3P/5C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/