Judgment : 1. Heard both sides. 2. According to the Petitioner, he is the Vice-President of Kadupatti Panchayat and there is a liquor shop running by the Second Respondent Corporation in Vikiramangalam Village for more than a decade. Further, it causes a hindrance to the general public of that Village. Therefore, the entire residents of that Village have indulged in continuous agitations against the continuance of that shop. In order to control the agitation and demonstration by various section of people, the Respondents have decided to shift the TASMAC shop from Vikiramangalam to his Panchayat (Kadupatti Village) and now they are taking steps for shifting and opening the same on 1/10/2014. 3. It comes to be known that the Petitioner and other residents (including Teachers and Merchants) have made joint representation dated 18/9/2014 to the First Respondent in person by making a request not to shift the TASMAC shop from Vikiramangalam to his Village. On receipt of the same, the same was forwarded to P.A. to Collector (General) for further action. On 19/9/2013, another representation was made by a political party viz., Revolutionary Socialist Party to the First Respondent for the same grievance and the same is forwarded to the Second Respondent/District Manager, TASMAC Limited. 4. The stand of the Petitioner is that the entire residents of his Village as well as the other public in general had already decided long time back to keep their Village free from alcohol. Under these circumstances, the proposal of the Respondents to locate the liquor shop in their Panchayat is highly detriment to right and interest of their residents. 5. Further more, the proposed place i.e., in S.Nos.320/2, 320/3C1 to 320/3C4 and 320/6, Kadupatti Village, Vadipatti Taluk, Madurai District belonged to one Kumar, native of Kochadai, Madurai District, who constructed a concrete building meant for shop for the purpose of leasing out to the Second Respondent for running the proposed liquor shop. 6. Also that, in order to ascertain Door number and Survey number of the proposed place, an enquiry was made by the Petitioner in the Office of the Village Administrative Officer, Mullipallam and in reply, he had stated that the construction for the proposed shop is made in the Government poramboke land and not in the land belonging to the said Kumar. As such, the Village Administrative Officer concerned had refused to give permission to the building as on date. 7. As such, the Village Administrative Officer concerned had refused to give permission to the building as on date. 7. The real grievance of the Petitioner is that if the proposed shop is located and commenced its business which will create hindrance to the entire residents such as the students, who are crossing the liquor shop, they may face hardship. Moreover, the agricultural workers particularly women working in the nearby field may face hindrance from the consumer liquor and the worker's work in the nearby coir factory within 100 metres) will face serious consequences. Besides these, most of the consumers of liquor are used to smoke cigarette, beedi etc., while taking liquor and after smoke, the half burnt pieces of cigarette may be thrown into the nearby coir factory which had stored highly flammable raw materials for the production of coir as such, there is a possibility of fire mishap. In fact, the Petitioner's Villagers wanted to keep their Village free from alcohol. 8. Hence the Petitioner has filed the present Writ of Mandamus seeking an order from this Court in forbearing the Respondents from shifting the TASMAC shop No.5488 from Vikiramangalam to Kadupatti Village, Vadipatti Taluk, Madurai District based on his representation dated 18/9/2014. 9. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner cites the Division Bench judgment of this Court in THE TAMIL NADU STATE MARKETING CORPORATION LTD., REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, CMDA TOWER ? II, CHENNAI Vs. 1. R.M.SHAH AND FIVE OTHERS { 2010 (2) CWC 337 }, wherein it is observed that “Right to lead a life without nuisance is protected under Article 21 of the Constitution of India” and further, in paragraph 15 at page 340, it is held that “... The State is expected to promote the well being of its people. It is true that the State have to generate funds for undertaking welfare measures. The trade in liquor otherwise known as res extra commercium is a major source of revenue to the State. But the generation of revenue should not be at the expense of the peaceful life of the people.” 10. It is true that the State have to generate funds for undertaking welfare measures. The trade in liquor otherwise known as res extra commercium is a major source of revenue to the State. But the generation of revenue should not be at the expense of the peaceful life of the people.” 10. Also, in the aforesaid decision at page No.342 in paragraph 20 it is observed as follows:- “Therefore, we are of the considered view that any person who is deprived of peaceful life on account of the nuisance created by a liquor shop could challenge the action in locating the shop in a residential or semi- residential locality as offending the right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India notwithstanding the fact that the liquor shop satisfies the distance criteria.” 11. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner cites the decision of this Court M.EDISON V. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT & OTHERS {2012 (2) CWC 615}, at special page No.618, herein in paragraph 9, it is observed as follows:- “By quixotic interpretation to the prohibition Act and even in the teeth of Article 47 wherein the State had undertaken its endeavour to bring about prohibition of the consumption except for medicinal purposes of intoxicating drinks and of drugs which are injurious to health, the State is running liquor shops. By the closure of one shop, no one will shed tears and it will not bring about any loss to the State especially, the turn over from the liquor sales in this State had already crossed Rs.16,500 crores per annum.” 12. That apart in the aforesaid decision, at page No.617 in paragraph 6, it is observed as follows:- “It is curious to note that the Respondents have contended as if there is no complaint from the public and hence, there is no necessity to relocate the said TASMAC shop. But, it is not clear as to how the Respondents contended that there is no Complainant from the public, as if the petitioner is not a member of the public and he is not residing in that area, while the shop is located in Door No.264 D and the petitioner is the resident of neighboring house in Door No.264 A in the same street. It cannot be said that there is no other location to have the functions of the said TASMAC shop. It cannot be said that there is no other location to have the functions of the said TASMAC shop. Even as per the admission of the Respondents that during the earlier objection raised by one Dr. S.Muthukrishnan for the said location, it was agreed by the lessee of the bar attached with the said shop that in case of any complaint, the shop will be shifted. The respondents have not denied that the shop has been creating nuisance to the local public including the women, college going girls and aged people, with whom the drunken consumers of liquor are misbehaving and creating nuisance. The allegation of the petitioner that the consumers of liquor throw the liquor bottle on the roof of the house of the petitioner is also not denied. The nuisance created by the consumers of liquor has been clearly made out by the petitioner, which has not been denied by the respondents.” 13. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner refers to the Division Bench orders of this Court in T. PAUL RAJ V. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, VIRUDHUNAGAR DISTRICT, VIRUDHUNAGAR AND ANOTHER { (2013) 6 MLJ 133 }, wherein it is held that “From the records, it is seen that the objections were submitted by the village people by Registered Post and the said objections were received by the second respondent. The panchayat also passed a resolution resolving that the District Collector should not grant permission for opening any Liquor Shop and the said resolution was also communicated to the second respondent. In such circumstances, the communication of the second respondent, recommending for opening of the liquor shop to the first respondent, cannot be treated as a valid recommendation, which is contrary to the records available.” 14. Apart from the above, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner cites the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in G.VETRIVEL AND ANOTHER V. GOLDEN ENCLAVE OWNERS' ASSOCIATION, REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT V.P.NAHIM Ur RAHMAN, CHENNAI AND OTHERS { (2012) 8 MLJ 76 } at special page 79, whereby and whereunder in paragraph Nos.13 to 16, it is observed and held as under:- “13. BY ITS PRESIDENT V.P.NAHIM Ur RAHMAN, CHENNAI AND OTHERS { (2012) 8 MLJ 76 } at special page 79, whereby and whereunder in paragraph Nos.13 to 16, it is observed and held as under:- “13. Even with regard to the contention of the owner and the TASMAC that the building is having different entries, and that there is no nuisance of any sort by the bar, we have no hesitation to say that it is within every prudent man's knowledge that drunken man will be flying somewhere and he will be out of his own control. Therefore, even though there are different entries to the building, the nuisance factor claimed by the occupants of the building cannot be ruled out as a drunken man is susceptible to claim anything and everything, even the globe for himself and no barricades will prevent him from indulging in any sort of nuisance. 14. With regard to the contention of the owner that as a lawful owner, he is entitled to let out his property to profitable use, we deem it fit to remind him the basic principle of Law of Tort that 'one's liberty ends, where other man's nose starts'. He may be owner of the flat, that does not mean that only with a view to generate income, he can do whatever he likes, particularly at the cost of safety and security of others. Therefore, this contention raised on the part of the flat owner is also rejected. 15. The other aspects with regard to licence and distance criteria have very well been discussed by the Division Bench of this Court, speaking through one of us (Justice Elipe Dharma Rao) in the above quoted judgment, which has been relied on by the learned Single Judge to arrive at his unerring conclusion of rejecting the contentions of the owner and the TASMAC. The broad principles laid down by us in The Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd V. R.M.Shah and others (supra) cannot be permitted to be diluted as if that case pertains to a residential locality whereas the present building is a commercial one. Whether it is a residential building or a commercial building, it should meet out the public safety and security. Whether it is a residential building or a commercial building, it should meet out the public safety and security. Therefore, the arguments advanced on the part of the appellants that the learned Single Judge has committed a legal error in applying the said judgment to the facts of the present case, cannot be appreciated. 16. On re-assessment of the entire facts and circumstances of the case, we have no hesitation to hold that the learned Single Judge is perfectly right in ousting the claims of the owner and the TASMAC and upholding the case of the writ petitioner/occupants Association. Therefore, we see no reason to entertain these writ appeals.” 15. Further more, the Learned Counsel refers to the order dated 13/11/2013 in W.P.(MD) No.12973 of 2013 between M.KASIRAJAN, COORDINATOR, TAMIL NADU OPEN UNIVERSITY and 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THOOTHUKUDI DISTRICT AND ANOTHER, wherein in paragraph Nos.10 and 11, it is observed and held as follows:- “10. But, certainly because the shop is located by the side of the petitioner's study centre, wherein in liquor is not only sold but also served, this fundamental right would be materially infringed upon. Therefore, the shop cannot be allowed to run in the said place, because it is violative of the fundamental rights of the petitioner. No Governmental action can be approved by a Court of law, if it violates any of the fundamental rights of a citizen, because the right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is a basic human right. It may be true that the shop has been located in accordance with the Rules. Nevertheless, since it is violative of the fundamental rights of this petitioner, it needs judicial interference. 11. In such view of the matter, I am of the firm view that the shop at Door No.23 and 23 a at Muthanandapuram, 2nd street, Kovilpatti, Thoothukudi District should be immediately closed and however, it will be open for the respondents to shift the shop elsewhere subject to the convenience and the Rules.” 16. According to the Learned Counsel for the Third Respondent (who was impleaded as Third Respondent in M.P.(MD) No.2 of 2014 as per order dated 5/11/2014), TASMAC shop bearing No.5488 was in existence at Vikiramangalam Village and further Vikiramangalam and Kadipatti are the villages which comes under one Panchayat i.e., Vikiramangalam Panchayat. According to the Learned Counsel for the Third Respondent (who was impleaded as Third Respondent in M.P.(MD) No.2 of 2014 as per order dated 5/11/2014), TASMAC shop bearing No.5488 was in existence at Vikiramangalam Village and further Vikiramangalam and Kadipatti are the villages which comes under one Panchayat i.e., Vikiramangalam Panchayat. Added further, there were some complaints from the public that about the existence of said TASMAC shop No.5488 at the aforesaid place, in as much as the School, Hospital, important business complexes are in existence, there were complaints from various Sections of the public about the existence of TASMAC shop No.5488. Based on the complaint, the Respondents 1 and 2 had assured the agitating public, at that place, shop bearing No.5488 would be shifted to an alternative and suitable place which does not in any way cause inconvenience to the free flow of traffic especially to students, ladies, patients, senior citizens etc. 17. Based on the aforesaid assurance given by the Respondents 1 and 2, the Second Respondent approached the Petitioner and requested for leasing out his vacant place which is situated in an isolated area, wherein there is no traffic movement or hindrance to anyone. Later, the agreement of lease was entered into by him and the concerned on 18/9/2014. As per terms of the lease, he has to construct the building and provide necessary amenities like water, electricity and other basic needs. For construction of the building suitable for the TASMAC shop, he had invested huge amount and constructed the same. Further, he obtained necessary electricity permission and other permissions from the concerned authorities and the building is to be handed over shortly to the Third Respondent. 18. Finally, it is represented on behalf of the Third Respondent that in terms of the assurance given by the Respondents 1 and 2, the previous existing shop No.5488 is being shifted to his place and as such, the prayer of the Petitioner is not sustainable. 19. In response, the Learned Counsel for the Second Respondent/District Manager, TASMAC Limited submits that it is false on the part of the Petitioner to contend that TASMAC shop will give hindrance to the entire residents and as a matter of fact, a proposed place is far away from the Villages and Temples i.e., at a distance of about 1000 metres. In response, the Learned Counsel for the Second Respondent/District Manager, TASMAC Limited submits that it is false on the part of the Petitioner to contend that TASMAC shop will give hindrance to the entire residents and as a matter of fact, a proposed place is far away from the Villages and Temples i.e., at a distance of about 1000 metres. As such, there is no violation of Rule 8 of the Tamil Nadu Liquor Retail Vending Rules, 2003. Also that when the proposed place is not within a prohibited distance as per Rule 8 of the Tamil Nadu Liquor Retail Vending Rules, 2003 which proceeds to the effect that : “Location of shop - No shop shall be established in Municipality Corporation and Municipalities within a 50 metres and in other areas 100 metres distance from any place of worship or Educational institutions.” 20. Then, the filing of the present Writ Petition by the Writ Petitioner is an ill-conceived one. Moreover, the Vice President of the Village Panchayat has no power to shift the TASMAC shop. Only the First Respondent/District Collector is having the power for the same as per Rule 9 of the Tamil Nadu Liquor Retail Vending Rules, 2003 and also it is the decision of the Government. As such, the Petitioner being the Vice President of the Village is not to take a call in the matter. 21. That apart, after conducting the spot inspection by the District Manager, TASMAC Limited and the Assistant Commissioner of Excise, Madurai and after satisfying the requirements of the Rule, the Second Respondent sent proposal to the First Respondent on 27/9/2014 and the same is pending before them. 22. Per contra, the allegations made by the Petitioner in the Writ Petition are untenable and baseless one. 23. 22. Per contra, the allegations made by the Petitioner in the Writ Petition are untenable and baseless one. 23. On a careful consideration of respective contentions and also in view of the fact that the joint representation made by the Petitioner and Villagers to the First Respondent, Second Respondent dated 18/9/2014, 19/9/2014 respectively and also the joint representation made by the Petitioner and Villagers and the representation made by the Revolutionary Party dated 19/9/2014 addressed to the First Respondent/District Collector, Madurai and also this Court keeping in mind of the fact that the 'Right to Life' guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India would include within its ambit every aspect of life, so as to make a life real and meaningful, without expressing any opinion on the contents of the joint representations and the representations made by the Petitioner and others on various dates to the concerned authorities, in the interest of Justice and fair play, directs the First Respondent/District Collector before whom the proposal to open the TASMAC shop in question is pending from 27/9/2014 to look into the aforesaid representations of the Petitioner and others dated 18/9/2014, 19/9/2014 in a fair, free, impartial, pragmatic, practical and in a dispassionate manner and to dispose of the same by taking note of the fact that the Villagers of the Petitioner Panchayat as well as public in general had decided to keep their Village free from alcohol and to pass a reasoned, speaking order on merits, untrammelled and uninfluenced with any of the observations made by this Court in the present Writ Petition within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, of course after providing due opportunities to the Petitioner and others by adhering to the principles of natural Justice. 24. With the above observations and directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition (MD) No.1 of 2014 is closed.