V KA VELUSAMY Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed this writ petition praying for issuance of writ of mandamus, forbearing the respondents from starting a new TASMAC shop nearby the Panchayat Union Office, Nambiyur, Erode district, which would be detrimental to the right of the petitioner.

(2.) The petitioner would state that apart from him, several others have given representations to the Authorities from 05.02.2014 to 03.03.2014 and in spite of their representations, no action has been taken by the authorities. The petitioner and other objectors were not heard and effective steps have been taken to locate the shop in the building owned by 4th respondent/ impleaded party. The petitioner would further state that the proposed shop would create nuisance, if located in their area and inconsistent with Rule 8 of the Tamil Nadu Liquor Retail Vending (Shops and Bars) Rules 2003 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). Further, it is submitted that there is an orphanage, a temple, a church and a private company in the vicinity of the proposed shop and 20 students are studying in the locality and school girls will have to cross the proposed location to reach the bus stop. Further, there are women working in Textile Mill and they have to cross the proposed site to reach their place of employment. That apart, the petitioner would state that serious issues will arise, if the shop is located in the area and public of the area would be grossly affected. In support of such contentions, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner placed reliance on the following decisions:

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for TASMAC, by relying upon the counter affidavit filed, submitted that Shop No. 3611 was earlier located at Door No. 450 and 454, Kovai Main Road, Nambiyur and since many people protested for location of the shop, a decision was taken to relocate the shop. It is further submitted that the premise owned by the fourth respondent does not infringe any of the conditions stipulated by Rule 8 of the Rules and the shop is proposed to be located outside the Town Panchayat and is isolated from the residential area and all other institutions and there is no Temple (or) Mosque (or) Church (or) Hospital (or) School (or) bus stand existing within 100 meters from the proposed location. Further, the Panchayat Union office is located more than 100 meters away from the proposed location and the Temple is located more than 300 meters away and the contention that there is a church and a home for destitute children in the proposed location is incorrect as there is no such place of worship and a home for destitute children. Therefore, the learned counsel submitted that TASMAC should be permitted to locate the shop in the building owned by the fourth respondent. Further, it is submitted that if there is any nuisance caused on account of establishment of the shop, then, it is always open to the petitioner to invoke the remedy under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code. In support of such contentions, the learned counsel placed reliance on the order passed by the Honourable First Bench in the case of R.Sangeetha Vs. The District Collector, Tiruvannamalai District, Tiruvannamalai and three others, made in W.P.No. 20235 of 2014 dated 09.10.2014. The learned counsel produced a sketch prepared by a Private Engineer stating that the shop is not proposed to be located in an objectionable place and the contentions of the petitioner are not tenable.