Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 2898 (MAD)

R. Gopinath v. District Collector, Virudhunagar

2015-08-27

S.NAGAMUTHU, V.S.RAVI

body2015
ORDER : S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. This Public Interest Litigation is all about liquor. Rule 10 of the Tamil Nadu Liquor Retail Vending (In Shops and Bars) Rules, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules"), states that every liquor shop shall have a signboard in Tamil in front of the shop showing the following slogans in bold letters about the evils of drinking and such other slogans, as may be approved by the Commissioner. The said slogan is as follows: "Liquor-ruins country, family and life." The petitioner herein, who is a public spirited person and a resident of Maraneri village, has come up with this Public Interest Litigation alleging that the TASMAC Shop No. 12080 ruins the atmosphere of a Government High School, where hundreds of students including the girl students are studying. The school, known as Government High School, Maraneri, is situated on Alankulam - Sivakasi Road at Maraneri. The said school is situated on the west of the said road and on the immediate south of the said school, there is a Match Factory known as Vivekanantha Match Factory. The road turns towards east. In the corner of the said road, i.e., on the southern side, the TASMAC Shop No. 12080 is situated. According to the petitioner, the distance between the said shop and the school is only 57.00 meters, whereas, according to the Rules, there should be a minimum distance of at-least 100 meters. Thus, according to the petitioner, the location of the shop violates Rule 8 of the Rules and also violates Article 21 of the Constitution of India, inasmuch as the students, who are studying in the school, cannot study peacefully and they cannot use the road peacefully to go to the school, because of the nuisance caused by the people, who take liquors in the said shop. With this grievance, the petitioner has come up with this Writ Petition, seeking a direction to shift the said shop forthwith. 2. This Public Interest Litigation came up for hearing before this Court on 25.08.2015. The petitioner, along with this petition, has filed the photographs showing that the empty liquor bottles and used plastic tumblers have been thrown in the Noon Meal Centre and in the school compound. The petitioner has also produced a plan prepared by one Mr. K.K. Nagarajan, Consulting Engineer and Licensed Surveyor, Sivakasi. The petitioner, along with this petition, has filed the photographs showing that the empty liquor bottles and used plastic tumblers have been thrown in the Noon Meal Centre and in the school compound. The petitioner has also produced a plan prepared by one Mr. K.K. Nagarajan, Consulting Engineer and Licensed Surveyor, Sivakasi. The said plan clearly indicates that the distance between the compound wall of the school and the TASMAC shop is hardly 57 meters. In order to ascertain the correctness of the same, this Court directed the Senior Regional Manager, TASMAC Limited, Madurai (4th respondent herein) to appear before this Court in the afternoon session at 2.15 p.m. The matter was passed over. At 2.15 p.m. the Senior Regional Manager, TASMAC Limited, Madurai, appeared before this Court. He submitted to this Court that the distance between the TASMAC shop and the main entrance of the School is 120 meters and thus, the shop has been located in tune with the Rules and not in derogation of the same. He has further submitted that the said shop has been functioning in the said location from the year 2010. Therefore, according to him, there is no violation of the Rules. 3. When this Court wanted from him to explain as to what exactly the distance between the compound wall of the school and the TASMAC Shop, he expressed his inability to say even approximately as to what is the distance between these two. However, he consistently maintained that as per the Rules, uniformly, it is done through out the State that the distance is measured only from the entrance of the school and not from the compound wall of the school. In those circumstances, in order to ascertain the truth, more particularly, to find out as to whether the shop in question has been located within the prohibited distance, this Court wanted an Advocate Commissioner to be appointed to measure the distance and to submit a report. When this was expressed, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner himself is a poor man and with great difficulties, he has come up with this petition before this Court and therefore, he would not be in a position to offer to pay remuneration to the Commissioner to be appointed by this Court. Immediately, Mr. When this was expressed, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner himself is a poor man and with great difficulties, he has come up with this petition before this Court and therefore, he would not be in a position to offer to pay remuneration to the Commissioner to be appointed by this Court. Immediately, Mr. G. Bhagavath Singh, the learned counsel practising in this Bench, came forward voluntarily offering to act as an Advocate Commissioner, in the event, he was appointed. Appreciating his offer, this Court appointed him as Advocate Commissioner, requesting him to visit the property and submit a report, along with photographs and a sketch. 4. Today, when the matter was taken up, the learned Advocate Commissioner has submitted a detailed report, in which he has stated that he measured the properties, more particularly, the distance between the school and the TASMAC Shop in the very presence of the fifth respondent viz., the District Manager - Mr. Ravichandran. He has reported that the distance between the school compound wall and the TASMAC shop is only 58.5 meters. Just abutting the road by the side of the compound wall, Noon Meal Centre room for the benefit of the students of the school is located and just on the west of the said room, Headmaster's room is situated. Thus, from the Noon Meal room and the Headmaster's room, the distance of the TASMAC shop is only 58.5 meters. He has also produced the photographs taken at the said place. A scrutiny of all these photographs would go to show that if the students come out of the entrance of the school, they can straightaway see the shop, which is so visible. Further, in between the school and the shop, there is only one building, which is a Match Factory. Such is the shortest distance between these two. We are unable to comprehend as to how the authorities, including the District Collector, located the shop at such a shortest distance, which would have certainly caused so much of inconvenience to the students studying in the school. 5. Mr. Such is the shortest distance between these two. We are unable to comprehend as to how the authorities, including the District Collector, located the shop at such a shortest distance, which would have certainly caused so much of inconvenience to the students studying in the school. 5. Mr. Ravichandran, the District Manager of the TASMAC Limited, Virudhunagar, who is present before this Court, submitted that it is true that the distance between the compound wall of the school and the TASMAC shop is only 58.5 meters, but he would submit that the measurement has to be made only from the main entrance of the school. He would further submit that now, yet another entrance has been made by the school authority and from that entrance, the distance is around 60 meters. In our considered view, a close reading of the Rules would go to show that the distance between the TASMAC Shop and the educational institutions does not mean that the distance between the main entrance of the school and the main entrance of the TASMAC shop. The Rule itself says that the distance mean the shortest distance between these two. Here, in this case, the shortest distance is only 58.5 meters only. We are able to visualise as to how much the students studying in the school would have been shivering all these years, when they were passing through the said shop. We apprehend that the minds of many students at their young age might have even been spoiled by the very location of the shop. If the students stand just in front of the school, they can see the people drinking liquors in the shop, because it is so visible. Unmindful of the interest of the poor students, who are studying in the Government School, the officials have located the shop at such a shortest distance. 6. From these facts, we are satisfied that the location of the shop is in gross violation of the Rules. When this was pointed out, the learned Special Government Pleader, appearing for the District Collector, took time to get instructions from the District Collector on this aspect. Later, he submitted to this Court that the District Collector had instructed him to report to this Court that the shop would be shifted within one week. When this was pointed out, the learned Special Government Pleader, appearing for the District Collector, took time to get instructions from the District Collector on this aspect. Later, he submitted to this Court that the District Collector had instructed him to report to this Court that the shop would be shifted within one week. But, this Court is not fully satisfied with the said statement, because allowing the shop to run in the present location any more, even for a single day, would not be in the interest of the students community and the general public. When the location of the shop is in violation of the rules, we cannot allow the shop to run in the said place. When this was expressed, the fifth respondent submitted to this Court that he would shift the shop tomorrow i.e., on 28.08.2015 itself. He has also made an undertaking to the said effect. Having regard to these submissions, we are of the view that this is a fit case where we have to issue a direction to the fifth respondent to close the shop forthwith at it's present location and shift it to any other place, at the convenience of the respondents, but according to the Rules. 7. In the result, this Writ Petition is allowed in the following terms: (a) The respondents are directed to close the TASMAC Shop No. 12080 from tomorrow (i.e., 28.08.2015) morning itself, in the present location. (b) The respondents are at liberty to shift the shop to any other place, in accordance with the rules, thereafter. No order as to costs. Before parting with this case, we place on record our appreciation to the excellent services rendered by Mr. Bhagavath Singh, the learned counsel, who acted as an Advocate Commissioner in public interest without any remuneration. We also appreciate the petitioner for having filed this petition as a true Public Interest Litigation to protect the interest of the poor children, who are studying in the Government High School at Maraneri. We appreciate the learned counsel for the petitioner also for his services. Similarly, we appreciate Mr. A.K. Baskara Pandian, the learned Special Government Pleader and Mr. Munyiasamy, the learned standing counsel for TASMAC, for their services in getting instructions from the District Collector and the other authorities forthwith to make their submissions. We appreciate Mr. Senthil and Mr. We appreciate the learned counsel for the petitioner also for his services. Similarly, we appreciate Mr. A.K. Baskara Pandian, the learned Special Government Pleader and Mr. Munyiasamy, the learned standing counsel for TASMAC, for their services in getting instructions from the District Collector and the other authorities forthwith to make their submissions. We appreciate Mr. Senthil and Mr. Muthukrishnan, the technical persons, who assisted the Advocate Commissioner, during his visit to measure the property preciously.