1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 16.09.2011 C O R A M THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR Writ Petition (MD)No.10563 of 2011 M.Balakumar ...Petitioner Vs 1.The District Collector, District Collectorate, Madurai-20. 2.The Commissioner of Police, Police Commissionerate, Madurai. 3.The District Manager, TamilNadu State Marketing- Corporation Limited, Kappalur, Madurai. 4.The Assistant Commissioner, Prohibition and Excise, Madurai. ... Respondents Prayer :Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of Mandamus directing the respondent No.3 to open and function the TASMAC shop No.5197, scheduled in door No.184/100, South Veli Street, Madurai, consequently, directing the second respondent to provide security for the above mentioned shop on the opening day. For petitioner ...Mr.V.S.Karthi for M/S.V.S.Karthi Associates For respondent... Mr.T.S.Mohamed Mohideen Additional Government Pleader for RR-1, 2 and 4 For Respondent 3 .. Mr.M.Muniasamy O R D E R According to the petitioner, the District Manager, TASMAC Limited, Madurai, has granted a licence on 16.08.2011, to sell eatables and collect empty bottles from the bar attached to shop No.5197, scheduled in door No.184/100, South Veli Street, Madurai and that the said licence is valid from 01.07.2011 to 30.06.2012. It is the further contention of the petitioner that TASMAc shop is located 75 meters away from the place of worship namely “The Mina Noortheen Pallivasal”. Rule 8 of the TamilNadu Liquor Retail Vending (In Shops and Bars) Rules 2003 and G.O.Ms.NO.292, Prohibition and Excise (VI) dated 03rd November 2003, permits location of liquor shop 50 meters away from any place of worshipping within the jurisdiction of Municipal Corporation Limits. 2.It is the further contention of the petitioner that on 17.08.2011, when the shop was attempted to be opened, certain unknown persons claimed to be the members of the the said Pallivasal, have illegally prevented the opening of the shop in the bar. The police officials and Officers of the Assistant Commissioner's Office, measured the distance between the shop and Pallivasal, in the presence of members and confirmed that the shop is not located within the prohibited distance as per Rule 8 of the TamilNadu Liquor Retail Vending (In Shops and Bars) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 Rules 2003 and G.O.Ms.NO.292, Prohibition and Excise (VI) dated 03rd November 2003. The IMFL shop has not been opened sofar, enabling the petitioner to run the business of selling eatables and collect empty bottles as per the licence dated 16.08.2011 granted by the District Manager, TASMAC, Madurai. Since the petitioner has invested a huge amount in the business and not in a position to conduct the same, he has made a representation on 24.08.2011 to the respondents, to open the shop. As there is no response, he has approached this Court for issuance of mandamus, directing the District Manager, TASMAC, Madurai, to open TASMAC shop NO.5197, located in door No.184/100, South Veli Street, Madurai, with a consequential direction to the Commissioner of Police, Madurai, second respondent herein to provide adequate police security for opening the shop. 3.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials available on record. 4.Seeking for a direction from this Court, to the respondents to open a liquor shop is purely an attempt to abuse the powers of this Court. In the case on hand, though the location of the TASMAC shop No.5197, is stated to be 75 meters away from the place of worship namely “The Mina Noortheen Pallivasal” and not within the prohibited distance, as per Rule 8 of the TamilNadu Liquor Retail Vending (In Shops and Bars) Rules 2003 and G.O.Ms.NO.292, Prohibition and Excise (VI) dated 03rd November 2003, from the averments, it could be inferred that there are some objections for the location of TASMAC shop. What has been granted by the excise authority in the order dated 16.08.2011 is only a permission to sell eatables and collect empty bottles from the bar attached to TASMAC shop NO.5197. As per the terms and conditions of the licence, the petitioner has to pay monthly fee, for the abovesaid purpose. If for any reason, the liquor shop could not be opened, due to any bonafide reasons, the only remedy open to the petitioner is to seek for remission or refund of the amount, if, paid for the particular period, during which the licensee, is not in a position to sell eatables and collect empty bottles from the bar attached to TASMAC shop. Even assuming that licencee of a bar has invested a considerable amount for location of the bar and made payments, if for any reason, the liquor shop could not be opened, he cannot seek for a mandamus to provide police security for opening of a bar as if there is any public interest. In view of the above, the petitioner has no legal right to insist that the shop should be opened, despite, objections, and for providing police security. The Commissioner of Police, Madurai, second respondent has better and more sensitive duties, to be performed, as a custodian of law. 5.The relief of mandamus sought for against the respondents 2 and 3 is wholly misconceived. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed accordingly. Sd/- Deputy Registrar (W) /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 To 1.The District Collector, District Collectorate, Madurai-20. 2.The Commissioner of Police, Police Commissionerate, Madurai. 3.The District Manager, TamilNadu State Marketing- Corporation Limited, Kappalur, Madurai. 4.The Assistant Commissioner, Prohibition and Excise, Madurai. Vs GH : 23.09.2011 : 3p/5c Writ Petition No.10563 of 2011 16.09.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/