K. Periyakaruppan vs Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation (TASMAC) and G. Muthu Kumar

R. Banumathi, J.—In this public interest litigation petition, the petitioner challenges the impugned proceedings of the second respondent and consequently, forbear the respondents from in any way establishing or locating a TASMAC Liquor Shop cum Bar bearing Shop No. 6807 at Door No. 597/3-43-A5, Aathupalam West, Ilayangudi Road, Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram District. Originally, Shop No. 6811 was in Door No. 597/3-43-A5, Aathupalam West, Ilayangudi Road, Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram District, for six years and the same was shifted to another place because of personal problem developed between the building owner and the bar attached shop owner. Fourth respondent obtained lease from the owner of the premises in Door No. 597/3-43-A5 and fourth respondent sought for permission for Shop No. 6807.

Earlier, the writ petitioner filed Writ Petition in W.P.(MD) No. 14723 of 2011 in which the Division Bench passed the order dated 22.12.2011 directing the second respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner by affording opportunity to the petitioner and other relevant parties and to pass orders on merits and in accordance with law. As per the order of the court, the writ petitioner was called for an enquiry on 20.02.2012 and the petitioner had also attended the enquiry. After hearing the petitioner and also the public, and since there was no objection from the public, the second respondent gave permission for locating the Shop No. 6807 with Bar attached at Door No. 597/3-43- A5, aathupalam West, Ilayangudi Road, Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram District.

Challenging the impugned order granting permission to locate Shop No. 6807 with Bar in the said premises, the petitioner has filed this public interest litigation petition. The contention of the petitioner is that Shop cum Bar No. 6811, which was functioning at Door No. 597/3-43-A5, Aathupalam West, Ilayangudi Road, Paramakudi, was shifted to Gandhiji Road, Paramakudi only after prolonged objection of the residents of the area and therefore, the impugned order granting permission for another shop is unsustainable in law. It was further contended that the place where TASMAC Shop No. 6807 is proposed to be shifted is a thickly populated residential area; there is an Elementary School, by name, Sri Sankra Vidyalaya and Temple, by name, Sri Sankara Vinayagar Temple and a Hospital is also located within the prohibitory distance of 50 metres, which is in violation of law as prescribed under Rule 8 of the Tamil Nadu Liquor Retail vending (In Shops and Bars) Rules, 2003. Further contention of the petitioner is that locating the TASMAC Bar No. 6807 at Door No. 597/3-43-A5, Aathupalam West, Ilayangudi Road, Paramakudi, would adversely affect the residents of the area, which would also result in creating intolerable nuisance.

In the counter affidavit filed by the Respondents 2 and 3, it is averred that Shop No. 6811 was functioning at Door No. 597/3-43-A5, Aathupalam West, Ilayangudi Road, Paramakudi, for six years without any public objection and it was shifted to a nearby place only because of the personal problem developed between the building owner and the bar attached shop owner. It is further alleged that the writ petitioner is a close relative of the licence holder of the Bar attached with Shop No. 6811 and that the Writ Petition has been filed on the only ground that because of Shop No. 6807, their business in the newly shifted place will be affected and no public interest is involved in this Writ Petition.

Drawing our attention to the averments in the counter affidavit filed by the District Collector, Ramanathapuram District, the learned Additional Government Pleader, Mr. A.Muthukaruppan, contended that the objection raised by the writ petitioner for locating Shop No. 6807 at Door No. 597/3-43-A5 is only because of personal motive. It was further submitted that Shop No. 6811 was functioning in the same place for six years. The writ petitioner had not raised any objection and now, only because of the inducement of the owner of the Bar attached with Shop No. 6811, the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition and no public interest is involved in this Writ Petition.

We have also heard Mr. M.Muniasamy, learned counsel appearing for the TASMAC.

In the counter affidavit filed by the District Collector, Ramanathapuram District, it is clearly stated that Shop No. 6811 was functioning at Door No. 597/3-43-A5, Aathupalam West, Ilayangudi Road, Paramakudi, for six years without any public objection. Only because of the personal problem developed between the building owner, the Bar attached with Shop No. 6811 was shifted to Gandhiji Road, where he built a building of his own. The premises at Door No. 597/3-43-A5, Aathupalam West, Ilayangudi Road, Paramakudi, was remaining vacant. The fourth respondent who obtained Licence for Shop No. 6807 has obtained lease from the owner of the building at Door No. 597/3-43-A5, and since no objection was received from the public for locating Shop No. 6807 at the said place, the second respondent granted permission to locate Shop No. 6807 at Door No. 597/3-43-A5, Aathupalam West, Ilayangudi Road, Paramakudi. In the enquiry held, the second respondent came to the conclusion that there is no School or Temple in the place where TASMAC Shop No. 6807 is proposed to be located. It is further stated that the Elementary School, by name, Sri Sanakra Vidyalaya and the Temple, by name, Sri Sankara Vinayagar Temple are located beyond the prohibitory distance of 50 metres as prescribed under Rule 8 of the Tamil Nadu Liquor Retail vending (In Shops and Bars) Rules, 2003. Therefore, the second respondent rejected the representation of the petitioner dated 15.12.2011 and the permission was granted for locating Shop No. 6807 at Door No. 597/3-43-A5, Aathupalam West, Ilayangudi Road, Paramakudi.

The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition as public interest litigation. We do not find any public interest involved in the Writ Petition. It is stated that the writ petitioner is working in the Bar attached with Shop No. 6811 and that the licence holder of the said Bar, by name, Selvakumar is a relative of the petitioner. According to the respondents, the Writ Petition has been filed only at the instance of the shop owner of Shop No. 6811 purely due to business rivalry. As such, no public interest is involved in this Writ Petition.

In this context, it would be appropriate to refer to the observations made by the Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar Pandey Vs. The State of West Bengal and Others, wherein the Supreme Court has held that the writ petitioner who comes to the Court for relief in public interest must come not only with clean hands like any other writ petitioner but also with clean mind and clean objective.

Subsequently, the ratio of the above decision was applied by the Supreme Court in Suyambulingadurai, P. vs. State represented by the P. Suyambulingadurai Vs. State and Others, also and has held in Paragraph No. 11 as follows:-

In this context, it would be appropriate to refer to some of the observations made by the Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar Pandey Vs. The State of West Bengal and Others, , Dr. B. Singh Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, and Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, , which are as follows :-

I. Only a person action bona fide and having sufficient interest in the proceeding of the PIL, will alone have a locus standi and can approach the Court to wipe out the tears of the poor and needy, suffering from violation of their fundamental rights, but not a person for personal gain or private profit or political motive or any oblique consideration.

II. A writ petitioner who comes to the Court for relief in public interest must come not only with clean hands like any other writ petitioner but also with a clean heart, clean mind and clean objective. The Court shall not allow its process to be abused for oblique considerations by masked phantoms who monitor at times from behind.

III. Some persons with vested interest indulge in the pastime of meddling with judicial process either by force of habit or from improper motives and try to bargain for a good deal as well to enrich themselves. Often they are actuated by a desire to win notoriety or cheap popularity. The petitions of such busybodies deserve to be thrown out by rejection at the threshold, and in appropriate cases with exemplary costs.

The above observations of the Supreme Court would squarely apply to the facts of the present case. In these circumstances, we are of the view that the petitioner has filed the Writ Petition not in the public interest but in the personal interest and the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed. Connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs.