1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED 29.11.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA W.P(MD)No.13696 of 2011 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2011 H.T.Sathyadoss ..Petitioner Vs The District Manager, Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Limited, Konam, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District. ..Respondent Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the respondent in Na.Ka.No.045/B/2011, dated 19.11.2011 and to quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and unenforceable and consequently to direct the respondent to extend the balance period of license from 1.12.2011 to 16.05.2012. For Petitioner :Mr.V.K.Vijayaraghavan for M/s.M.R.S.Prabhu For Respondent :Mr.M.Muniasamy ORDER The petitioner was granted license on being declared as successful bidder for shop No.4836, by proceeding, dated 12.05.2011 in Na.Ka.No.045/B/2011, dated 19.11.2011. The petitioner was issued with license by confirming the petitioner's highest bid for Shop No.4836, for a period of 17.05.2011 to 30.11.2011. But,before the auction took place in respect of Petitioner's shop No.4836, two Writ Petitions in W.P.No.39 of 2011 and W.P.No.131 of 2011 in respect of local shop bearing Shop No.4836, situated at Dennison Road, Nagercoil were filed for quashing the tender notification. 2. The prayer made in W.P.No.39 of 2011 was to issue direction to close down the shop No.4836. The another prayer sought for in W.P.No.131 of 2011 was to issue direction to the respondent to shift the liquor shop No.4836, on the ground that https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 the said shop is situated within the prohibited area. Finally, when the matter was taken up for final hearing on 26.11.2011, this Court came to the conclusion that shop in question is not in the same side of the college, but, located in the commercial area. Therefore, as per the first proviso to Rule 8, it was held that distance restriction will have no application at all. On that basis both the Writ Petitions were dismissed. 3. Only thereafter, the petitioner came into picture and when he was issued with a license for the above said period, the petitioner immediately after receiving the license finding that it was given only for a period of 5 months and 17 days made a representation to the respondent for grant permission to run the bar for a period of one full year, otherwise, he would be put to financial inconvenience. In the meanwhile, the petitioner has also in an effort to keep his shop in order and commercially workable, has spent huge sum, by raising several structures for the convenience of the consumers. Therefore he repeated his representation, on coming to know that his representation was not properly responded by the respondent. When his repeated requests to extend the license period for one full year found no response, he has come to this Court seeking the limited relief. 4. That as per the original agreement, every license has to be given for one full year. Therefore, the petitioner is also asking for a reasonable prayer to give the same period of one full year from the date, namely, 17.05.2011 to 16.05.2012. The petitioner has also filed W.P.No.11930 of 2001 to dispose of his representation, dated 20.05.2011, 10.06.2011 and 14.07.2011 for extension of period of Liquor Shop No.4836 in Kanyakumari District. This Court by order dated 4.11.2011 directed the respondent/ The District Manager, Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Limited, to consider and dispose of his representation on or before 30.11.2011, on merits. Subsequently, in the light of the order passed by this Court, the petitioner's representation was disposed of on 19.11.2011. As a result, the petitioner's shop also was brought in public auction in the notification issued by the respondent. Immediately the petitioner has filed Writ Petition W.P.No.13347 of 2011. This Court after notice to the respondent, passed an order not to bring the bar attached to the liquor shop No.4836 for public auction. As a result, the shop in question has not been brought in for public auction. Therefore, when the policy of the Government as mentioned in the original agreement clearly spells out that every shop has to be given license for one full year, as in the present case, in view of the pendency of the writ petition, though the petitioner was declared as successful bidder, he was given license to run the shop in question only for 6 months and 13 days. The petitioner after taking the shop through public auction as highest bidder, has invested several lakhs for running the bar. 5. In that view of the matter, though the learned counsel for the respondents objected that when all other shops are https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 brought in public auction, if the petitioner's shop is also included in the public auction, the petitioner can also participate in the auction and if he is coming as a successful bidder, he will be issued with license. This submission does not find favour with this Court. As the petitioner was given licence only for 6 months and 13 days, this Court not accepting the said statement, deems it fit to direct the respondents to extend the license for the rest of the period, so that the petitioner will be in a position to complete one full year like other similarly placed persons. However, it is subject to the payment of usual charges. 6. With this observation, the Writ Petition is disposed of. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(C.O) /True Copy/ Sub-Assistant Registrar To The District Manager, Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Limited, Konam, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District. vsn rl/2c – 22.12.2011 W.P(MD)No.13696 OF 2011 29.11.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/