Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 2459 (MAD)

K. Raju v. District Collector, Tirunelveli

2014-08-07

S.NAGAMUTHU

body2014
Judgment 1. The petitioner is a resident of Vikramasingapuram in Tirunelveli District. His residential house is located in Door No.10/99-D at Papanasam Main Road in Vikramasingapuram. The petitioner is residing in the said house, along with his wife, children and other members of the family. The petitioner has got two school going young girls and his son is studying in a local college. Just by the side of the compound wall of the house of the petitioner, the house, bearing Door No.10/99-E is located. In that house, there is a small portion, which was originally meant for car shed. Now, the owner of the said house has let it on rent to the Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation (TASMAC), Tirunelveli District, for running a TASMAC liquor shop (vide Shop No.10820). 2. Earlier, the petitioner filed a writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.554 of 2011, seeking a direction from this Court to shift the said liquor shop to some other place, as it was a nuisance for the petitioner and his family members to use their house. This Court, by order dated 29.03.2011, directed the District Collector, Tirunelveli, to hold an enquiry and to pass appropriate order on the request of the petitioner within a period of five weeks. As against the said order of the learned Single Judge, the 4th respondent herein, who is running the Bar attached to the said liquor shop, filed a writ appeal in W.A.(MD)No.522 of 2011. The said writ appeal was dismissed. In the writ appeal order, the 3rd respondent, namely the District Manager, TASMAC, was directed to consider the request of the petitioner. Accordingly, the 3rd respondent has considered and passed an order, rejecting the request of the petitioner for shifting the shop. That is how the petitioner is before this Court with this writ petition, aggrieved by the said order. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for TASMAC appearing for respondent 3, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 2 and the learned counsel for the 4th respondent. I have also perused the records, carefully. 4. The 3rd respondent has filed a detailed counter, wherein inter alia, he has stated that TASMAC shop has been located in the place in question, by following Rule 8 of the Tamil Nadu Liquor Retail Vending (in Shops and Bars) Rules, 2003, (in short “the Rules”). I have also perused the records, carefully. 4. The 3rd respondent has filed a detailed counter, wherein inter alia, he has stated that TASMAC shop has been located in the place in question, by following Rule 8 of the Tamil Nadu Liquor Retail Vending (in Shops and Bars) Rules, 2003, (in short “the Rules”). According to him, the 3rd respondent had considered the request of the petitioner and found that the place where the shop is now located does not violate Rule 8 of the Rules, relating to the distance and the request of the petitioner has been rejected. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would, however, submit that factually it is wrong to say that the location of the shop does not violate Rule 8 of the Rules. He would further submit that assuming that Rule 8 is not violated, the location of the shop certainly violates Article 21 of the Constitution of India. He would submit that right to life in its true sense means a dignified peaceful life and it cannot be equated to a mere animal existence. The learned counsel would, therefore, submit that locating the TASMAC shop as well as bar to enable the consumers to take drinks, just by the side of the house and to quarrel all the 24 hours, in an inebriated condition, creates a danger to the safety of the family members of the petitioner and as a result, the petitioner and other family members are not able to live peacefully. Thus, on the ground of violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the liquor shop in question needs to be shifted, the learned counsel contended. 6. The learned Standing Counsel for TASMAC would submit that since there is no violation of Rule 8 of the Rules, the shifting of the shop, as requested by the petitioner, cannot be conceded to. He would further submit that the shop is running in a very peaceful manner and there is no violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 7. The learned counsel for the 4th respondent would adopt the argument of the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent. 8. I have considered the above submission. 9. Of course, it is true that in the impugned order, the District Manager, TASMAC, Tirunelveli, has concluded that there is no violation of Rule 8 of the Rules. 7. The learned counsel for the 4th respondent would adopt the argument of the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent. 8. I have considered the above submission. 9. Of course, it is true that in the impugned order, the District Manager, TASMAC, Tirunelveli, has concluded that there is no violation of Rule 8 of the Rules. But, that is not the end of the matter. Above all, the citizens are guaranteed a peaceful, dignified and respectful life, as a fundamental right, guaranteed by the Constitution of India, under Article 21. Article 21 is known as the soul of the Constitution, without which the life of the citizens of this country cannot be meaningful. The scope of the term “life”, as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India, has received very liberal interpretation by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on several occasions, which includes right to have a dignified life, right to have a peaceful life, right to have a peaceful atmosphere, right to inhale free air, etc. In my considered opinion, if the shop is located just by the side of the compound wall of the residential house of the petitioner, all the above rights are likely to be violated, thereby putting the life of the petitioner as well as his family members in jeopardy. 10. Though the learned Standing Counsel for TASMAC would submit that there was no disturbance at all all these years, I am not prepared to accept this submission. It is well known as to how people behave in this part of the State when they are highly inebriated. It is not as if the TASMAC has got no other convenient place for them to run the shop. Consumer of liquor may not find it difficult to search for to reach the place of the shop, even if it is located at a distant place. Therefore, assuming for a moment that Rule 8 of the Rules has not been violated, I firmly hold that the present location of the shop violates Article 21 of the Constitution of India and therefore the shop should be shifted, immediately. 11. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order of the 3rd respondent is set aside. 11. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order of the 3rd respondent is set aside. The respondents 1 to 3 are directed to shift Shop No.10820 from Door No.10/99-E, Papanasam Main Road, Vikramasingapuram, Tirunelveli District, within two days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.