G. VETRIVEL Vs. GOLDEN ENCLAVE OWNERS ASSOCIATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE first respondent in both the writ appeals is a Welfare Association of occupants of the Flats, situated on Poonamallee High Road, Chennai -10. They have initiated the present writ proceedings, before the learned single Judge, praying to close the liquor shop with bar attached functioning in the basement of their flats. Their contention is that their complex is a office cum commercial complex where various offices are situated and many ladies are working. It is also their case that the complex in which the liquor shop cum bar is situated at the Taylors Road junction of Poonamallee High Road and exactly outside the complex, there is a bus stop and in and around the complex, there are several schools, hospitals and temples. According to them, because of the liquor shop, the situation becomes more worst after 8 pm, when almost all the offices are closed and taking advantage of the closed offices, many people purchase liquor and other items from liquor shop and go to various places in the complex, consume liquor and are throwing the bottles and other garbage in the complex, as a result of which, many of the occupants are finding it difficult in the morning to open their offices and due to the existence of liquor shop cum bar and the restaurant in the basement, throughout the day, in the entire complex, there is unpleasant smell due to the smoke from the restaurant and also because of smoking of the liquor consumers.

(2.) THE claim of the writ petitioner was stiffly opposed by the owner of the flat and TAS -MAC by filing separate and vivid counters, denying all the allegations of the writ petitioner and further stating that the liquor shop was opened by obtaining necessary licences and at no point of time, there is any nuisance or disturbance in the locality, which is evident from the fact that no police complaint of that sort has ever been lodged. They have also maintained that the building is a commercial one, with different entry points for bar and the other occupants and therefore, the contentions raised on the part of the Association are baseless.

(3.) AGAIN , since, in the opinion of the learned single Judge, the said Advocate -Commissioner has failed to report as to how beer bar causes nuisance to the general public, warranting its closure, by the order dated 9.2.2011, another Advocate -Commissioner was appointed with a direction to go and inspect the beer bar and to report as to whether location of beer bar at the place is nuisance to the public at large. The second Advocate -Commissioner was also directed to record the statement of the persons of nearby locality, in this regard and submit his report. Accordingly, the second Advocate -Commissioner filed his report before the learned single Judge. Along with the report, the Advocate -Commissioner had enclosed the objections raised by the occupants of the Complex, with reference to the location of the shop as well as the letters received from three Principals of neighbouring Schools.