G. Rajendran vs State of Tamil Nadu

K. Chandru, J.—The petitioner is the resident of Hoganekkal, Pennagaram Taluk, Dharmapuri District. The writ petition has been filed seeking for a direction to the respondents to forbear from running a TASMAC retail vending shop having licence No. 2815 located at Mudalaipannai, Uttamalai Main Road, Pennagaram Taluk, Dharmapuri District.

It is the case of the petitioner that the location of the shop is in such a place creating hindrance to the people especially women and school going children who are passing by the side of the shop.

The writ petition was admitted on 12.04.2007. Pending the writ petition, in the application for interim direction and injunction, only notice was ordered. But in M.P. No. 1 of 2007 seeking for interim injunction. When it came up on 04.12.2007, this Court referred to the relevant rule regarding the location of shops within the prohibited distances and directed the Tahsildar, Pennagaram should inspect the area and file a report regarding the location of the shop including showing the measurement of the shop from the temple, bus stand and a nearby school.

On such direction, the District Collector, the third respondent sent a letter dated 06.12.2007 to the learned Additional Government Pleader including the report of the Tahsildar, Pennagaram along with a sketch Map. As per the sketch, the distance from TASMAC shop to Desanadheswar Kovil is 162 metres, 77 metres away from the bus stand, 195 metres away from the Elementary school, 450 metres from the Hoganekkal Water falls, 1/2 k.m from the Forest Guest House, 3/4 k.m from working child labour school and 2 kms from Ottamalai Government High School. When this report was placed before this Court on 02.01.2008, a further direction was given to get the exact minimum distance between the TASMAC shop and the temple as per the sketch. The earlier measurement was found fault with as it had taken the distance through the road and not across the two locations. Though this Court directed the report to be filed within 18.01.2008, the same was not filed into the Court as directed.

Therefore, when the matter came up on 18.03.2010, this Court directed the District Collector to file the report as ordered by this Court, failing which appropriate action was to be taken. Thereafter, a second report was submitted. By the revised measurement, it was once again stated that the location of the temple was 162 metres and the Anganwadi School was 142 metres. But the direct measurement from the liquor shop to the temple was shown as 71.6 metres equal to 235 feet. It is seen that the shop is located on the road leading to the Hoganekkal falls. As per the revised plan, it is a clear case that the shop is located within 100 metres from the place of worship. It is actually only away from the shop namely 71.5 metres. Besides that on the backside of the TASMAC shop, there was an Anganwadi centre for the kids. It is claimed that the children of the Anganwadi were of the age group between 1 and 4 and are fed by the State. Though it is claimed that its distance is 142 metres, the sketch clearly showed that the Anganwadi school is located between the temple and the TASMAC shop. Therefore, it should be closer than the temple.

The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner also produced a photograph published in a Tamil newspaper "Kalaikadir", Dharmapuri Special. It is clearly seen that persons were sitting on the road as well as on the foot path. Places were strewn with wastages including plastic tumblers, Water bottles and snacks plates. They were scattered all over the banks of the Cauvery river. It also showed that it is the only thoroughfare to the water falls. The news report accompany the photograph showed that there were increasing sexual harassment to the women who were going to the falls. It had virtually become an open bar. Despite notice being served on first and third respondents, they have not filed any counter affidavit refuting the allegation made.

On behalf of the second respondent, a counter affidavit dated 30.05.2007 has been filed. It was contended that already one M. Arulmurugan had filed a writ petition being W.P. No. 8525 of 2006 trying to prevent from opening the shop. This Court did not grant any injunction after noting that the shop had already come into existence. However, that writ petition was dismissed on 15.03.2006 since the present writ petition had been filed subsequently. In the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent, it was stated that the retail vending shop was opened on 01.04.2006 since Hoganekkal is a tourist centre. The TASMAC shop has been opened with the permission of the District Collector. Earlier the shop was located opposite to the bus stand. Subsequently it was shifted to Ottamalai Road, which is far away from the bus stand. It was claimed that the shop was opened to arrest the sale of illicit liquor. Further no one need to consume the liquor in public since a facility of a bar was annexed to the shop. However the stand taken by the second respondent did not tally with the report send by the Tahsildar as ordered by this Court.

Mr. J. Ravindran, learned Counsel for the TASMAC stated that if this Court is of the opinion that the place in which the present shop was located is objectionable, time may be given for them to shift the shop to an unobjectionable location. Taking into account the overall circumstances of the case and also finding that the location of the shop is clearly in violation of Tamil Nadu Liquor Retail Vending (in Shops and Bars) Rules, 2003 and by going through the newspaper report and that the allegation made by the petitioner not contested by the respondents 1 and 3 and also the fact that young children are attending to an Anganwadi Centre just behind the shop, a direction must issue to the respondents to shift the shop to an unobjectionable location. Hence the second respondent is directed to shift the TASMAC shop located at Mudalaipannai, Uttamalai Main Road, Hoganekkal, Pennagaram Taluk to another unobjectionable place in accordance with the Rules within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and send a report of compliance to this Court without fail.

The writ petition stands allowed accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.