1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:06.09.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR WP(MD)No.9955 of 2011 and MP(MD)No.1 of 2011 T.Janadevi :Petitioner -Vs- The Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation (TASMAC), represented by its District Manager, Manamadurai, Sivagangai District. :Respondent PRAYER:Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondent from shifting shop No.7673, Sangamangalam, Manamadurai P.O., Sivagangai District from its current location in premises bearing Door No.418-A, Madurai-Rameswaram Main Road, Manamadurai P.O., Sivagangai District. For petitioner : Mr.G.R.Swaminathan For respondent : Mr.M.Muniasamy ORDER Mandamus forbearing the Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation (TASMAC), Manamadurai, Sivagangai District, from shifting shop No.7673, Sangamangalam, Manamadurai P.O., Sivagangai District, from its current location, in premises bearing Door No.418-A, Madurai-Rameswaram Main Road, Manamadurai P.O., Sivagangai District, has been sought for, on the ground that the petitioner has entered into a lease agreement with the respondent, which expired on 31.07.2011 and therefore, the shop should not be relocated, till the expiry of the lease period. It is further submitted that when the petitioner's son was not in a position to obtain a copy of the tender schedule, he had to file W.P.(MD).No.9561 of 2011 and even though, this Court, by order dated 24.08.2011, directed the respondent therein to issue the tender schedule, the same was not complied with. On 27.08.2011, tender process was conducted in respect of all the shops, except the shop No.7673. In order to grant licence to a member of a ruling party, the respondent has decided to shift the shop to some other place. Thereafter, the petitioner has caused the letter on 27.08.2011, requesting the respondent not to take any unilateral decision to relocate the shop. As there was no response, the petitioner has come forward with the present writ petition. 2.Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 3.The writ petition is solely misconceived, as the petitioner has no legal or statutory right to insist that the IMFL of the shop should be located only in her premises, as per the tender condition. In addition to the deposit of specified sum, the intending bidders have to furnish no objection certificates from the respective landlords or they themselves would give a consent letter, if they own any premises to locate a bar, within the IMFL shop or adjoining a shop, as per the Tamil Nadu Liquor Retail Vending (in Shops and Bars) Rule, 2003. It is not open to the petitioner to contend that the shop should be located only in her premises, just because, she has entered into lease agreement with TASMAC, which had expired on 31.07.2011. Such contentions cannot be accepted and it would run contrary to the conditions of notification and make it redundant. There is no legal or statutory right for the petitioner to seek for a mandamus. The writ petition does not deserve consideration. Hence, dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (AS) / TRUE COPY / Sub Assistant Registrar To: The District Manager, The Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation (TASMAC), Manamadurai, Sivagangai District. +1CC to Mr.G.R.Swaminathan, Advocate. SR.No.30359. Gcg WP(MD)No.9955 of 2011 and MP(MD)No.1 of 2011 RP/26.09.2011/2P/3C.06.09.2011. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/