Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 170 (MAD)

V. Sathishkumar v. Managing Director

2012-01-09

M.JAICHANDREN

body2012
Judgment :- 1. This writ petition has been filed praying that this Court may be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus to forbear the respondents 1 and 2 from initiating any action against the petitioner, contrary to law, at the instigation of the third respondent. 2. It has been stated that the petitioner is carrying on liquor business through the wine shop bearing Shop No.1000, Chennai (South), at New No.43, Old No.11, Arunachalam Salai, Saligrammam, Chennai-600 093, as per the terms and conditions of the license granted by the proceedings of the second respondent, dated 9.12.2011, made in Se.Mu.No.A6/646/2011. 3. The petitioner hasfurther stated that he had invested a huge amount of money in running the liquor business, by establishing a bar. He had also submitted that in spite of the fact that there is no school or temple within the statutory limit, as provided under Rule 8(1) of the Tamil Nadu Liquor Retail Vending (in Shops and Bars) Rules 2003, the third respondent has been making several representations to the first and second respondents to initiate action against the petitioner and to seal the shop and the bar, which the petitioner has established. Therefore, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2, had submitted, on instructions, that the first and the second respondents had not initiated any action against the petitioner, till date. Therefore, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner on a mere apprehension that action would be initiated against the petitioner by sealing the bar, based on the representations made by the third respondent. As such, the writ petition filed by the petitioner, on a mere apprehension that the first and second respondents would initiate action against the petitioner, is not maintainable. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2, had also submitted that the action, if any, which may be initiated against the petitioner, would only be in accordance with the procedures established by law. Therefore, the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2, had also submitted that the action, if any, which may be initiated against the petitioner, would only be in accordance with the procedures established by law. Therefore, the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the parties concerned, this Court is of the considered view that the writ petition filed on a mere apprehension that the first and the second respondents would initiate action against the petitioner, based on the representations made by the third respondent, cannot be maintained. 7. It is clear from the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2, that no action would be taken against the petitioner contrary to law. It had also been submitted that, no action has been contemplated against the petitioner, at present, as alleged by him. In such circumstances, as no further orders are necessary, the writ petition stands dismissed. However, it is made clear that if the petitioner is aggrieved by the action initiated by the respondents 1 and 2, if any, it would be open to him to seek appropriate remedy, before the appropriate forum, in the manner known to law. No costs. Connected M.P.No.1 of 2012 is closed.