V.KA. VELUSAMY Vs. THE 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 the 4th respondent submitted that the writ petition is thoroughly misconceived and the contentions raised by the petitioner are factually incorrect and there is no violation of Rule 8 and the writ petition has been filed with preconceived notion and imagination and even before the proposed shop is established and even before any violation is reported, the writ petition has been filed and it is premature. Further, it is submitted that there are enough mechanisms facilitated by legislators to ruthlessly curb nuisance under the provisions of Section 133 Cr.P.C and if there is any nuisance, the concerned authority, who are empowered to remove the liquor shop, could exercise that power. Further, it is submitted that the decision relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of The Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd. Rep. By its Managing Director, 6 CMDA Tower -II, Chennai Vs R.M.Shah and five others (supra) has no relevancy to the case on hand. Equally, the decision in the case of M.Edison Vs The District Collector, Tirunelveli District and others (supra) is also not relevant, since in both the cases, the liquor shops were opened and thereafter, nuisance was caused by the consumers of the liquor shops. Whereas in the case on hand, the shop is yet to be opened and even before that, the petitioner has filed this writ petition alleging that nuisance will be caused. Further, the learned counsel submitted that the Honourable Division Bench in the case of K.Sundara Mahalingam made in W.P (MD)No. 151 of 2012 dated 20.04.2012 has observed that if there is any nuisance, then, remedy would be to invoke Section 133 Cr.P.C. and similar observations were also made by the Honourable First Bench in W.P.No. 80 of 2010, dated 04.03.2011. It is submitted that the 4th respondent has complied with all criteria and the statutory provisions and he should be allowed to carry on his right to trade as enshrined under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.