Judgment :- V.M. Velumani, J. Petitioner has sought for a direction to the respondents to close/shift TASMAC Shop, bearing No.4829, stated to be located opposite to Alumoodu Bus Stop, based on his representation, dated 24.02.2014. 2. According to the petitioner, he is residing at Thonduturray Veedu, Padanthalumoodu Post, Kanyakumari District. His house is situated on NH-47, Nagercoil - Thiruvananthapuram National Highways at Padanthalumoodu. Opposite to his house, Sacred Heart Church is situated. The Church is surrounded by a Women's Hostel, Tamilnad Mercantile Bank and T.C.K. Higher Secondary School. Alumoodu Bus Stop is located opposite to the said Church, where the students would alight from the bus, to go to the School. 3. On 01.12.2014, the second respondent has opened a TASMAC Shop, bearing Shop No.4829, opposite to Alumoodu Bus Stop. According to the petitioner, the said Shop is located between the Sacred Heart Church and T.C.K. Matriculation School with a distance of 35 meters from the Church and 75 meters from the entrance of T.C.K. School. The distance between the said TASMAC Shop and TCK School compound is only 10 meters. 4. The location of the shop is in contravention of Rule 8 of the Tamil Nadu Liquor Retail Vending (In Shops and Bars) Rules, 2003 [hereinafter referred to as "the Rules"]. The petitioner gave several representations to the first respondent, who is the competent authority to decide the location of the shop and to shift the shop to some other place after it was opened. The District Collector, Kanyakumari District, Nagercoil, the first respondent herein, has received the representations and forwarded the same to the District Manager, Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd., Kanyakumari District, Nagercoil, the second respondent herein, for necessary action. Thereafter, the respondents have not taken any steps to shift the said TASMAC Shop from the present place. According to the petitioner, TASMAC Shop is located near the place of Worship and educational Institutions and that there are 2000 Students studying in two Schools and therefore, he has filed the present writ petition. 5. The third respondent is the owner of the building, where the TASMAC Shop is located. He has been impleaded as third respondent, as per the order of this Court, dated 02.06.2014, made in M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2014. 6. The second respondent has filed counter affidavit, denying the allegations made by the petitioner. 5. The third respondent is the owner of the building, where the TASMAC Shop is located. He has been impleaded as third respondent, as per the order of this Court, dated 02.06.2014, made in M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2014. 6. The second respondent has filed counter affidavit, denying the allegations made by the petitioner. According to the second respondent, the petitioner has no locus standi to file the writ petition. The petitioner is not residing opposite to Church and he is residing 1/2 Kilometer away from Alumoodu-Athencode Road. The second respondent has further stated that the said TASMAC Shop is located 100 meters away from the Sacred Heart Church and 200 meters away from TCK Higher Secondary School. The Shop is not on the National Highway and it is away from National Highway and it is not visible from Highways. He has further stated that rule 8 of the Rules, is not violated, as the said TASMAC Shop, is not near any place of Worship, Women's Hostel, Tamilnad Mercantile Bank and TCK Higher Secondary School. The second respondent has inspected the place, where the TASMAC Shop is located and at that time, the petitioner did not object for locating the Shop. For the abovesaid reasons, he has prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 7. The third respondent has filed counter affidavit, making similar averments as made by the second respondent. In addition to the same, the third respondent has also stated that TASMAC Shop is located on the extreme north from the National Highways through a private pathway, measuring about 56 meters from National Highways. There is no Bar in the said Shop. The third respondent, at paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit, has stated that the petitioner is running a Bar in the Highway, which alone is closer to the place of Worship and the Educational Institutions. He is the close relative of one Gangadharan, against whom, there is a final decree in respect of the Bar and a civil litigation is pending execution, against his legal heirs. To wreck vengeance, they have instigated the petitioner to file the present writ petition. 8. The third respondent has also filed an additional counter affidavit, stating that a mistake has crept in at paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit filed by him. It has been stated that the petitioner is running a Bar on NH 47. To wreck vengeance, they have instigated the petitioner to file the present writ petition. 8. The third respondent has also filed an additional counter affidavit, stating that a mistake has crept in at paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit filed by him. It has been stated that the petitioner is running a Bar on NH 47. In fact, one Udayakumar, a close relative of the petitioner, is running a TASMAC Shop on NH 47. The said Udayakumar is the son of Gangadharan, against whom, an Execution Petition has been filed. The subject matter of the property in E.P. is the property, in which the said Udayakumar is running a TASMAC Bar. Apprehending loss of business and to wreck vengeance for filing an Execution Petition by the third respondent, the said Udayakumar has instigated the petitioner, to file the present writ petition. 9. The petitioner has filed a rejoinder to the counter affidavit filed by the third respondent. He has denied the allegations made by the third respondent and reiterated the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. 10. This Court, by order, dated 02.04.2014, has appointed Mr.B.Senthilnathan, as the Advocate Commissioner. On 06.04.2014, at 10 a.m., the learned Advocate Commissioner has inspected the property in the presence of the petitioner, petitioner's counsel, Mr.Saravanan, Junior Advocate of the learned counsel for the second respondent, Excise Supervisory Officer, TASMAC, Nagercoil and Mr.C.Sasikumar, Assistant, TASMAC, Nagercoil, and he has filed a report along with a Sketch. In the report, he has stated that the distance between the entrance of TASMAC Shop and Sacred Heart Church Compound Wall is 45 meters; the distance between the entrance of TASMAC Shop and entrance of the Church is 54.90 meters; distance between the entrance of TASMAC Shop and TCK Secondary School Compound Wall is 66.05 meters; and the distance between the entrance of the TASMAC Shop and the entrance gate of TCK Higher Secondary School is 96.05 meters. 11. The third respondent has filed objections to the report of the learned Advocate Commissioner. The third respondent has pointed out that the learned Advocate Commissioner has failed to take into account, a private lane to a stretch of 56.3 meters, from the National Highway towards the end of the lane and 7 meters, when the private lane turned towards west, where the TASMAC Shop is located. 12. The third respondent has pointed out that the learned Advocate Commissioner has failed to take into account, a private lane to a stretch of 56.3 meters, from the National Highway towards the end of the lane and 7 meters, when the private lane turned towards west, where the TASMAC Shop is located. 12. He has further stated that the learned Advocate Commissioner has failed to take note of the fact that in the private lane, there are several plots with separate compound walls and workshops behind the shop mentioned in the Commissioner's plan. It is the case that the learned Advocate Commissioner has failed to mention the exact location of the Workshop. The distance between the Church Gate and TASMAC Shop is 118.20 meters. The learned Advocate Commissioner has also failed to take into account the pathway length of 56.3 meters and 7 meters, while calculating the distance between the lane, and the entrance of T.C.K. Higher Secondary School. If the same is taken into consideration, the distance would be 159.8 meters. The learned Advocate Commissioner has failed to take into account the length of the private lane. The distance mentioned by him, between the compound wall and the entrance of the Church, is not correct. 13. The issue to be decided in this writ petition is whether the TASMAC Shop in question located in violation of Rule 8 of the Rules. 14. It is relevant to extract Rule 8 of the Rules: "8. Location of shop. - (1) No shop shall be established in Municipal Corporations and Municipalities within a distance of 50 (fifty) meters and in other areas 100 (hundred) meters from any place of worship or educational institutions : Provided that the distance restriction shall not apply in areas designated as "Commercial" or “Industrial” by the Development or Town Planning Authorities : Provided further that no shop shall be established within the premises of any hotel : Provided also that if any place of worship, educational institution comes into existence subsequent to the establishment of the shop, the provisions of this rule shall not apply: Provided also that no liquor shops shall be established in any tribal areas covered under Integrated Tribal Development Project and Hill Area Development Project in the Hill area of Vellore, Salem, Namakkal, Dindigul, Tirunelveli and Kanniyakumari districts. (2) Every shop shall be housed in a pucka building and no part of the shops shall be thatched either on the sides or on the roof. (3) The shop shall be in the location approved by the Collector before commencing the business in the shops.” 15. As per the said Rule, a TASMAC Shop should not be located in Municipal Corporations and Municipalities, within a distance of 50 meters and in other areas, 100 meters, from any place of Worship or Educational Institutions. 16. Rule 2(i) of the Rules defines 'distance'. As per the definition, 'distance' means the distance by the shortest pathway, lane, street or road, generally used by the members of the public. 17. In the present case, the TASMAC Shop in question, is not located on National Highways as alleged by the petitioner. It is seen from the site plan filed by the learned Advocate Commissioner along with report that, (i) TASMAC Shop is not located on National Highways; (ii) to reach the TASMAC Shop, General Public must use a private pathway; and (iii) the entrance of private pathway is 66.5 meters from the Compound Wall of the School, and 45 meters from the Compound Wall of the Church. The pathway measuring 56.3 meters south to north from National Highways and it turns towards west and that the TASMAC Shop is located 7 meters from the turning point. Thus, the TASMAC Shop is located 129.8 meters from the compound wall of the School and 108.3 meters from the compound wall of the Church. Similarly, the Bus Stop is also located within 129.8 meters from the Shop. 18. The petitioner and the learned Advocate Commissioner have failed to take into account the length of the private pathway leading to TASMAC Shop. The petitioner has alleged that the TASMAC Shop is located within 100 meters from the Educational Institution and the place of Worship. This is factually incorrect. Similarly, as per first proviso to Rule 8, distance restriction shall not apply in areas, designated as "Commercial" or "Industrial" by the Development or Town Planning Authorities. The contention of the 3rd respondent/impleaded party that in the private lane leading to TASMAC Shop, there are number of workshops and several plots with separate compound walls, has not been disputed. The shop is located as per the rules. There is no violation of the rules. 19. The contention of the 3rd respondent/impleaded party that in the private lane leading to TASMAC Shop, there are number of workshops and several plots with separate compound walls, has not been disputed. The shop is located as per the rules. There is no violation of the rules. 19. For the reasons stated, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.