Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 260 (MAD)

T. Ashok v. Tamil Nadu State

2012-01-12

M.JAICHANDREN

body2012
Judgment :- 1. The petitioner has stated that the second respondent had conducted a tender for grant of bar licence, in respect of TASMAC shop No.4035, at No.119, Irrunkattukottai village, Sriperambudur Taluk, Kancheepuram District. The petitioner had participated in the tender and the tender amount of Rs.86,800/-, quoted by the petitioner, was declared to be the highest. Therefore, the second respondent had directed the petitioner to deposit the security amount and the licence fee of one month. Therefore, the petitioner had deposited a sum of Rs.2,60,400/-, by way of a cheque, on 5.5.2011, as security deposit, along with the licence fee of one month. Thereafter, the second respondent had issued the licence, dated 5.5.2011, to the petitioner, to sell eatables and to collect empty bottles from the bar attached to TASMAC shop No.4035, for the period from 5.5.2011 to 30.11.2011. Thereafter, the petitioner has been carrying on the business by paying the licence fee, as prescribed by the second respondent, without any default. 2. The petitioner has further stated that he had participated in the tender and had quoted the amount of Rs.86,800/-, as tender amount, after conducting a field inspection and on being satisfied that no other TASMAC shop is located within 500 meters from the TASMAC shop No.4035. While so, the second respondent had located the TASMAC shop No.4454, which is opposite to TASMAC shop No.4305, in survey No.88/1. Though the petitioner had objected to the proposal of the second respondent, for locating the TASMAC shop No.4454 and the bar attached to it at the proposed site, the respondents had gone ahead in implementing the said proposal. Thereafter, the petitioner had been making several representations, including the representation, dated 6.9.2011, requesting the respondents to close down the TASMAC shop No.4454, located in survey No.88/1. However, the respondents have not considered the representations made by the petitioner, till date. In such circumstances, the petitioner had preferred the present writ petition before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had submitted that the action of the respondents in locating the TASMAC shop No.4454, at survey No.88/1, is arbitrary and unreasonable. It is against the provisions of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 22 of the Constitution of India and the principles of natural justice. 4. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had submitted that the action of the respondents in locating the TASMAC shop No.4454, at survey No.88/1, is arbitrary and unreasonable. It is against the provisions of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 22 of the Constitution of India and the principles of natural justice. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had further submitted that the respondents, by locating the TASMAC shop No.4454, in survey No.88/1, had violated the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937, and the Rules framed therein. The action of the respondents is also against the terms and conditions of the licence issued to the petitioner. 5. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents denying the averments and allegations made by the petitioner in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. 6. It has been stated that the second respondent had conducted the tender for the grant of licence, in respect of TASMAC shop No.4305. Since, the petitioner had quoted the highest amount of Rs.86,800/-, he had been given licence to sell eatables and to collect empty bottles from the bar attached to TASMAC shop No.4305. The respondent had located the TASMAC shop No.4305, in survey No.88/1, at No.119, Irrunkattukottai Village, Sriperumbudur Taluk, Kancheepuram District, only after all the relevant factors had been considered, including the benefits that would accrue to the state Government. In view of the volume of sale in the locality concerned, the outlet had been opened by following all the formalities and with the permission of the District Collector concerned, and the report of the local police station stating that the locality is a nuisance free zone. 7. There is no condition in the terms and conditions of the agreement, entered into between the petitioner and the respondents, prohibiting the locating of another TASMAC shop, within the radius of 500 meters from the TASMAC shop No.4305. The decision of the respondents to locate the TASMAC shop No.4454, in survey No.88/1, is a discretionary power vested in the respondent. Unless the petitioner could show that the location of TASMAC shop No.4454 is contrary to the provisions of law applicable to such a case, it would not be open to the petitioner to challenge the same, by way of writ petition, before this Court. Unless the petitioner could show that the location of TASMAC shop No.4454 is contrary to the provisions of law applicable to such a case, it would not be open to the petitioner to challenge the same, by way of writ petition, before this Court. Since, the petitioner has not made any specific averments showing that the power exercised by the respondents, in locating the TASMAC shop No.4454, in survey No.88/1, is arbitrary and illegal, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 8. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the petitioner, as well as the respondents, and on a perusal of the records available, this Court is not inclined to grant the relief, prayed for by the petitioner, in the present writ petition. 9. The petitioner has not been in a position to show that the location of the TASMAC shop No.4305, in survey No.88/1, is contrary to the relevant provisions of law or the terms and conditions of the licence granted to him, in respect of the TASMAC shop No.4305. Even if it is true that the petitioner had obtained the licence, in respect of TASMAC shop No.4305, after making a field study and a survey of the locality, including the volume of sale of liquor in the said shop, before participating in the tender and quoting the highest amount in the said tender, it cannot be said that the respondents are not entitled to open another TASMAC shop close to the existing shop No.4305, as long as the said action of the respondents is not contrary to the relevant provisions of law and the terms and conditions of the licence granted in favour of the petitioner. However, in the present case, the petitioner has not been in a position to show that the action of the respondents, in locating the TASMAC shop No.4454, in survey No.88/1, is arbitrary and illegal. As such, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is devoid of merits. Hence, it is dismissed. No costs. Connected M.P.No.1 of 2011 is closed.