1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 04.03.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN W.P.(MD)No.936 of 2011 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2011 P.Gomathi Sankar : Petitioner Vs. 1.The District Collector, Tirunelveli District,Tirunelveli. 2.The District Manager, TASMAC Ltd.,Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli. : Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the entire records pertaining to the order passed by the second respondent vide his order in 7/2110/2010, dated 06.01.2011 and quash the same. For Petitioner :Mr.R.Anand For R1 :Mr.S.Shanmugavel, Addl. Govt. Pleader For R2 :Mr.J.Ravindarn O R D E R The petitioner challenges the order dated 06.01.2011 on the file of the second respondent whereby and whereunder he was directed to re-locate his bar as it is situated in an objectionable area. THE FACTS: 2. The building owned by the petitioner was taken on lease by the second respondent to locate TASMAC unit. The petitioner was given privilege to conduct a bar attached to the TASMAC shop bearing shop No.10720. The licence expires by 31st May, 2011. 3. While the matters stood thus, the second respondent issued the impugned order directing the petitioner to shift the bar as according to them the shop was located near the compound wall of Swami Nellaiappar Thirukovil, Tirunelveli. Since the petitioner was made to shift the bar during the currency of the licence period, he was constrained to file the Writ petition. 4. The second respondent in his counter affidavit justified the impugned order. According to the second respondent, the impugned order was passed on account of the direction issued by the District https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 Collector on 07.10.2010. It was further contended that there were objections raised by the public regarding the conduct of bar in the subject premises and therefore, the District Collector directed the TASMAC to find out another location. It was only to implement the said decision, the impugned order was issued. 5. The petitioner subsequently filed an affidavit seeking permission to conduct the TASMAC shop till the expiry of his licence period. He further stated that he has no objection in shifting the shop and bar after his period of licence. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the licence was taken by the petitioner under the impression that he will be in a position to conduct the bar till May, 2011. Therefore, it was not open to the second respondent to direct the petitioner to shift the bar. 8. The learned standing counsel for the second respondent submitted that there were agitations by the public on account of the conduct of liquor shop in the premises and that was the sole reason which made the Collector to direct the second respondent to shift the bar. Therefore, it was only public interest which made the authorities to pass the impugned order. DISCUSSION: 9. The shop owned by the petitioner was taken on lease by the second respondent to conduct a liquor shop. The lease contains provision regarding duration of lease and the right to the respective parties to terminate the relationship. The bar was given to the petitioner as a licencee. The impugned order was passed on account of the complaint preferred by the local people before the District Collector. 10. It is true that the impugned order does not contain details. However, the counter affidavit filed by the respondent and the documents filed during the course of hearing contains clear indication that there were objections from the local people regarding the location of the bar. 11. The District Collector being the Head of the Revenue Administration was bound to redress the grievances of the people. The petitioner was given privilege to conduct a bar. It is true that the period expires only by May, 2011. However it cannot be said that the shop cannot be directed to be shifted before the expiry of the original period. 12. The petitioner cannot be heard to say that the second respondent should conduct the shop only in his premises at all point of time. It is open to the second respondent to locate the Tasmac https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 shop where ever they want. The petitioner, being the building owner cannot compel the second respondent to conduct the Tasmac shop in the subject premises. In case the conduct of shop causes public nuisance, it is always open to the District Collector to direct the TASMAC to shift the liquor ship. In fact the petitioner did not allege any malafides against the respondents. 13. Therefore, I am of the view that the second respondent was fully justified in directing the petitioner to shift the bar. 14. The next question is as to whether the petitioner should be directed to shift the shop during the pendency of the lease period. 15. The lease period expires by May, 2011. The petitioner has been conducting the bar since May 2010. The period would expire within three months. The second respondent is yet to find out a suitable shop to shift the shop. Therefore, on a careful consideration of the matter, I am of the view that the petitioner should be permitted to conduct the bar till 31st May, 2011. 16 This is only on account of the undertaken given by the petitioner to permit the second respondent to relocate the unit. 17. The Writ petition is disposed of with the above direction. No Costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(P&A) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The District Collector, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli. 2.The District Manager, TASMAC Ltd., Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli. +1cc to Mr.J.Ravindarn, Advocate, Sr.No.11340 +one cc to Special Government Pleader, Sr.No. 11565 W.P.(MD)No.936 of 2011 04.03.2011 pm SMA/23.03.2011/5C/3P https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/