ORDER : (K. KUMARESH BABU, J.) Heard Mr.Abudu Kumar Rajaratnam Senior Counsel for Mr.F.Deepak, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.J.K.Jeyaseelan, learned Government Advocate for the respondents 1 to 3 and Mrs.M.Aasha, learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) for the fourth respondent. 2. The writ petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the first respondent in Na.Ka.No.Madhu.2/423661/2022 dated 13.07.2024 and for the consequential direction to the first respondent to grant FL2 license for the petitioner's recreational club, namely, Perumal Manamagil Mandram situated in Door No.456A, Masthanpatti, Vandiyur Bypass, Madurai under the Tamil Nadu Liquor (License and Permit) Rules, 1981. 3. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is a Society registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975 and for the benefit of its members, it is also running a recreational club. The petitioner had made an application for grant of FL2 license for the benefit of the members of the petitioner's club. A 'No Objection Certificate' had also been issued by the jurisdictional Inspector of Police. Since there was a delay in issuance of 'No Objection Certificate' from the first respondent, the petitioner had approached this Court seeking direction to the respondents to dispose of the application of the petitioner, in which a direction was issued by this Court on 04.07.2024 to pass suitable orders on the application pending with him. 4. In the interregnum, an alleged complaint had been made by a third party and an enquiry into such allegation was made by the fifth respondent, who had found that there was no person as named in the complaint. However, the second respondent relying upon the very same objection raised by the fictitious persons seems to have given a negative recommendation for the grant of FL2 license in favour of the petitioner. Such recommendation made by the second respondent to the first respondent is the subject matter of challenge in this writ petition. According to him, the report of the second respondent suggests that there is a bus- stand, school, hospital and residential buildings near the place of the petitioner's club and the same is also adjoining the Highways Department. 5. He would submit that in the very same locality, two other clubs, who predominantly operate the Bars, have been granted with FL2 licenses and they are currently in operation. 5. He would submit that in the very same locality, two other clubs, who predominantly operate the Bars, have been granted with FL2 licenses and they are currently in operation. Hence, the reasons assigned by the second respondent that based on the objections raised by the residents of the locality, particularly by a 40 th Ward Member, the petitioner's club cannot be granted with the FL2 license is a creation. He would further submit that such recommendation is a non-est recommendation in the light of the permission granted to other clubs, who predominantly run Bars in the very same locality, having the same disadvantages, which are sought to be shown for the petitioner. Therefore, he would pray this Court to set aside the recommendations made by the second respondent and consequently direct the first respondent to grant the FL2 license to the petitioner club. 6. Countering his arguments, Mr.J.K.Jeyaseelan, learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3 on the strength of the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent would submit that the request of the petitioner cannot be considered in view of the objections received from the general public and specifically, the objection letter received from the Councilor of the 40 th Ward of Madurai Corporation. He would further submit that a field inspection has also been conducted by the authorities and they had found that the objection raised by the Councilor of 40 th Ward was valid, as granting of an FL2 license to the petitioner would be an eminent law and order problem. He would further submit that the petitioner do not satisfy the provisions of Rule 19 of the Tamil Nadu Liquor (License and Permit) Rules, 1981 (herein after referred to as Rules). Therefore, he would submit that the petitioner is not entitled for grant of FL2 license. 7. The learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the fourth respondent would submit that the respondents had issued the 'No Objection Certificate' as required under law and as regards to the claim made, the fourth respondent, there is no remarks. 8. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side. 9. This Court during the course of hearing had directed the learned Government Advocate to produce the objections that have been received by the second respondent. 8. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side. 9. This Court during the course of hearing had directed the learned Government Advocate to produce the objections that have been received by the second respondent. Pursuant to the directions issued by this Court, the learned Government Advocate had produced the files. 10. A perusal of the files would indicate that one C.M.Duraipandian, who is the 40 th Ward Member of Madurai Corporation, had sent an objection. The said objection had been signed only by him. However, as an annexure to the said letter, there seems to have been signatures of general public. The said Councilor is a member of the ruling party, which is evident from the letterhead, on which the objections have been written. A specific averment had been made by the petitioner that two clubs, namely, Kingfisher Club Bar and Poonsolai Club Bar, had been granted an FL2 license in the same locality and having the same disadvantages, which is sought to be projected against the petitioner. 11. A counter affidavit filed by the second respondent does not rebut such statements made by the petitioner which would only bring this Court to the conclusion that the respondents admit to running of two clubs having benefit of the FL2 license. The FL2 license under the Rules are granted to a club for the benefit of its members on various conditions. The liquor that has been served in the club is not available to the general public. The reason attributed by the second respondent in its communication impugned in this writ petition, in view of this Court, is only to satisfy the said Ward Councilor, who belongs to the ruling party. Such exercise of power by the second respondent is nothing but a colorable exercise of power. In such event, this Court is inclined to eschew the recommendation made by the second respondent. 12. Heavy reliance is also sought to be made on Rule 19 of the Rules. Rule 19-A prescribes the condition that is to be satisfied for grant of license under the Rules. Clause a) justification of the local needs have to be taken and Clause b) prescribes that the public interest should not suffer by the grant of license and that the privilege is likely to be misused. 13. Rule 19-A prescribes the condition that is to be satisfied for grant of license under the Rules. Clause a) justification of the local needs have to be taken and Clause b) prescribes that the public interest should not suffer by the grant of license and that the privilege is likely to be misused. 13. In the present case, neither Clause a) nor b) of Rule 19-A of the Rules would attract to the case of the petitioner, as the petitioner is only seeking for grant of FL2 license for serving liquor to its members and there is no question of local need that is to be gone into as the liquor cannot be served by the petitioner to any other person other than its members. Similarly since the liquor is sought to be served only to the members of the petitioner club, there will be no public interest involved with the same. 14. In such view of the matter, the Writ Petition stands disposed of with a direction to the first respondent to dispose of the application filed by the petitioner, under which it had sought for an FL2 license to it without being influenced by the recommendation made by the second respondent dated 13.07.2024 and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law by considering the facts that similar FL2 license had been granted to two other Bars in the very same locality. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.