LAWS(MAD)-2019-9-343

M.ELUMALAI Vs. COMMISSIONER (EXCISE) EXCISE DEPARTMENT THATTANCHAVADY

Decided On September 20, 2019
M.ELUMALAI Appellant
V/S
Commissioner (Excise) Excise Department Thattanchavady Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petition, styled as a Public Interest Litigation, is filed by a resident of Uruvaiyar, Mangalam Post, Villianur Commune, Puducherry. The petitioner would submit that the 5th respondent was granted license to locate Arrack shop in T.S.NO.39/14 of Uruvaiyar Revenue Village and the location of the said shop in Mangalam Main Road is nearby to washroom and also a residential area and that apart, there is also a Girls School nearby and the Girl students, who are attending the School, were also subjected to humiliation and harassment.

(2.) The petitioner, on an earlier occasion, filed W.P.No.4263 of 2014 as a public interest litigation praying for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the Assistant Commissioner Excise, Excise Department to consider his representation dated 13.11.2013 and shift the Arrack shop No.(V) Uruvaiyar to his original location namely Arrack Shop No.(V) in the Government Poromboke land bearing T.S.No.39/14 on the very same Village and it was disposed of on 12.09.2014 by taking into consideration the submission of the learned Government Advocate (Puducherry) that fresh auction has been conducted and the Arrack Shop.V, from August 2014 is now functioning at the location which was infact being the place suggested by the petitioner. In the light of the development, nothing survived for further adjudication in that writ petition and disposed of the writ petition.

(3.) Mr.M.Gnanasekar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the 5th respondent started running arrack shop on the land belonging to one Mr.M.K.Palani, which was located as per the original notification and the said shop is located right in the middle of the residential locality and the same is also prohibited by the provisions of Rule 113 of the Pondicherry Excise Rules, 1920 and though serious objections were raised in the form of representations by the residents of that locality, the 3 rd respondent had stated as if no objections have been received and hence prays for appropriate orders.