Judgment :- 1. The petitioner Corporation, it is not in dispute, is a Government of India Undertaking. In connection with its mining operations, to house their workmen, they have constructed a township and extended several amenities to the houses constructed by them. They have allotted these houses to their workmen and other employees and also to other people, who do not belong to their establishment but are lessees or licensees with respect to such houses or shops which have been earmarked by the petitioner for specified purposes. 2. The State Government, it is said, has in implementation of a policy decision noticed that there would be six liquor shops in the township of the petitioner. Initially, the petitioner objected to the increase in the number of liquor shops in the township, but later confined their objection to the location of the liquor shops. The instant writ petition has been tiled for a direction to the respondents to decide the location of the liquor shops only with the concurrence of the petitioner. 3. It appears from the contents of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that the petitioner have some sort of misconception/mis-apprehension about their rights with respect to the township. They appear to think that with their rights in the buildings and shops as a proprietor or a tenure-holder, they have the right to administer the township. Unless there is a law under which such administration is vested in them, they cannot claim any right of civil administration which shall include administrative as well as police powers. Obviously therefore in respect of any policy touching the administration of the State, which is sought to be implemented in the township claimed by the petitioner, the petitioner cannot have any right to interfere with such a policy. 4. It appears, however, that the petitioner will still have the right which any owner of & building or a shop will have in relation to any tenant in occupation of such a building or a shop. Besides, when the petitioner Corporation are providing other amenities to the township, they may have concern with any change that any policy of the State is likely to make in the atmosphere of the township. Besides, when the petitioner Corporation are providing other amenities to the township, they may have concern with any change that any policy of the State is likely to make in the atmosphere of the township. With that concern, they may bring to the notice of the respondents/State Government their objections to location of any liquor shops for which they may have a right independently of any policy decision of the State Government for saying not to opening of a liquor shop in a premises or a shop belonging to them unless they have licenced the tenants in the house or the shop extending a right to them to run a liquor shop. Keeping is view this privilege which the petitioner may have with respect to the Neyveli Township, the respondents in their return have stated categorically that: “As the auction purchaser has to select only an unobjectionable place in the Neyveli Township and get aNo Objection Certificate from the petitioner Corporation, it was the look out of tbe Neyvell Lignite Corporation either to give the No Objection Certificate or not” It is obvious that one of the grounds on which the petitioner may refuse to give a No Objection Certificate will he that they have not licenced any particuiar area for the purpose of running any liquor shop and that they have allowed location of liquor shops in a specified area of such leaseholds in the hands of the tenants or agreed to lease to any tenant liquor shops and in no other area. 5. It is therefore clear that the implementation of the policy decision of the State Govrnment with respect to the location of six liquor shops to which petitioner Corporation have already agreed, will depend upon the situs with respect to which the petitioner give No Objection Certificate and at no other place. 6. With the direction as above, this writ petition is disposed of. No coats.