Madras High Court
N.Balakrishnan vs The Secretary To Government on 24 June, 2021
W.A.(MD)Nos.763, 764 and 965 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 24.06.2021
CORAM :
The Hon'ble Mr.SANJIB BANERJEE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
The Hon'ble Mr.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM
W.A.(MD)Nos.763, 764 and 965 of 2021
and
CMP(MD).No.3426, 3429 and 4347 of 2021
W.A(MD).Nos.763 and 764 of 2021
1. N.Balakrishnan
2. N.Chandrasekaran
3. M.R.Muthukrishnan .. Appellants/Petitioners
(in both Writ Appeals)
Vs
1. The Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St.George, Park Town,
Chennai – 600 003.
2. The District Collector,
Tiruchirappalli District,
Cantonment, Tiruchirappalli-620 001.
3. District Manager,
TASMAC Limited,72, C.P.3, SIDCO Estate,
BHEL Nagar, Thuvakudi,Tiruchirappalli – 620 015.
__________
Page 1 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)Nos.763, 764 and 965 of 2021
4. The Managing Director,
TASMAC,
CMDA Tower-II, IV Floor,
Gandhi Irwin Bridge Road,
Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.
(Respondents in both Writ Appeals)
5. The Commissioner,
Tiruchirappalli City Municipal Corporation,
No.58, Bharathidasan Salai,
Cantonment, Tiruchirappalli-620 001.
6. The City Engineer,
Tiruchirappalli City Municipal Corporation,
No.58, Bharathidasan Salai,
Cantonment, Tiruchirappalli-620 001.
7. The Executive Engineer (West),
Tiruchirappalli City Municipal Corporation,
No.58, Bharathidasan Salai,
Cantonment, Tiruchirappalli-620 001.
8. The Assistant Executive Engineer,
Planning Department,
Tiruchirappalli City Municipal Corporation,
No.58, Bharathidasan Salai,
Cantonment, Tiruchirappalli-620 001.
9. Junior Engineer,
Planning Department,
Tiruchirappalli City Municipal Corporation,
No.58, Bharathid0..asan Salai,
Cantonment, Tiruchirappalli-620 001.
10. M.Saleem
__________
Page 2 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)Nos.763, 764 and 965 of 2021
11. S.Jesmitha
12. G.Dinesh Kumar .. Respondents/Respondents
(Respondents 5 to 12
in W.A.(MD).No.764 of 2021)
Common Prayer: The Writ Appeals are filed under Clause 15 of Letters
Patent to set aside the common order dated 23.03.2021 in W.P(MD)Nos.
17489 of 2019 and 20741 of 2019 on the file of this Court and allow this
writ appeal.
For Appellants : Mr.A.R.L.Sundaresan,
Senior Counsel
For Respondents : Mr.A.K.Manickam,
Government Counsel
for R1 and R2
Mr.B.Jameel Arasu
for R3 and R4
Mr.N.S.Karthikeyan for R5
Mr.S.K.Mani for R10 and R11
Mr.Saji Bino for R6 to R9
W.A(MD).No.965 of 2021
G.Dinesh Kumar .. Appellant/12th Respondent
Vs
1. N.Balakrishnan
2. N.Chandrasekaran
3. M.R.Muthukrishnan ... Respondent Nos.1 to 3/Writ Petitioners
__________
Page 3 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)Nos.763, 764 and 965 of 2021
4. The Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St.George, Park Town,
Chennai – 600 003.
5. The District Collector,
Tiruchirappalli District,
Cantonment, Tiruchirappalli-620 001.
6. District Manager IMFS Depot,
TASMAC Limited,
72, C.P.3, SIDCO Estate,
BHEL Nagar, Thuvakudi,
Tiruchirappalli – 620 015.
7. The Managing Director,
TASMAC,
CMDA Tower-II, IV Floor,
Gandhi Irwin Bridge Road,
Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.
8. The Commissioner,
Tiruchirappalli City Municipal Corporation,
No.58, Bharathidasan Salai,
Cantonment, Tiruchirappalli-620 001.
9. The City Engineer,
Tiruchirappalli City Municipal Corporation,
No.58, Bharathidasan Salai,
Cantonment, Tiruchirappalli-620 001.
10. The Executive Engineer (West),
Tiruchirappalli City Municipal Corporation,
No.58, Bharathidasan Salai,
Cantonment, Tiruchirappalli-620 001.
__________
Page 4 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)Nos.763, 764 and 965 of 2021
11. The Assistant Executive Engineer,
Planning Department,
Tiruchirappalli City Municipal Corporation,
No.58, Bharathidasan Salai,
Cantonment, Tiruchirappalli-620 001.
12. Junior Engineer,
Planning Department,
Tiruchirappalli City Municipal Corporation,
No.58, Bharathidasan Salai,
Cantonment, Tiruchirappalli-620 001.
13. M.Saleem
14. S.Jesmitha .. Respondent Nos.4 to 14/Respondent Nos.1 to 11
Common Prayer: The Writ Appeals are filed under Clause 15 of Letters
Patent to set aside the common order dated 23.03.2021 in W.P(MD)Nos.
20741 of 2019 on the file of this Court and allow this writ appeal.
For Appellant : Mr.Mohammed Imran
For Respondents : Mr.A.R.L.Sundaresan,
Senior Counsel for R1 to R3
A.K.Manickam,
Government Counsel
for R4 and R5
Mr.B.Jameel Arasu
for R6 and R7
No appearance for R8 to R14
*****
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)Nos.763, 764 and 965 of 2021
COMMON JUDGMENT
[Order of the Court was made by
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE]
These appeals are directed against a common judgment dated March
23, 2021 by which the disputes between the appellants and the owners of
shops or bars selling or serving liquor have been relegated to a suit.
2. The appellants instituted the writ petitions complaining of the
relevant TASMAC shop or bar being continued at a place where there could
be no sale or serving of liquor. The appellants claim that the buildings
where the TASMAC shops or bars are housed are not approved as
commercial shops or fit for use for commercial purpose and have been
sanctioned only as residential buildings. It is the further contention of the
appellants that in some cases the plan sanctioned is of a much smaller area
than what has been ultimately constructed.
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)Nos.763, 764 and 965 of 2021
3. The essence of the submission on behalf of the appellants is that
apart from the locational parameters that have to be met before a TASMAC
shop or bar is opened, the building housing the TASMAC shop or bar must
also be fit for the purpose. The appellants contend that unless the relevant
building is certified for use as a commercial building and unless the
building is found to have adhered to the sanctioned plan, TASMAC as a
government body cannot act in an arbitrary manner and set up shop or bar in
illegally constructed buildings or in buildings which are exclusively meant
for residential use.
4. There is sufficient force in the submission made on behalf of the
appellants. Buildings which have been certified only for the residential use
cannot be used for any commercial venture. However, it is open to seek
permission from the appropriate Corporation or Municipality for change of
use of a building and, upon obtaining such clearance, the building may be
used for commercial purpose. Similarly, if a bar is to be run from a building
the sanction plan whereof provides its use only for residential purpose, the
appropriate Municipality or Corporation while considering the prayer for
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)Nos.763, 764 and 965 of 2021
modification will surely imposed conditions as to further safety measures
including additional staircase or entry and exit points. These considerations
are in addition to the locational guidelines that have been set down by the
State.
5. It is inconceivable that TASMAC, which is a government body,
will operate any shop or bar from any building which is meant exclusively
for residential use or that TASMAC could operate any shop or bar or any
premises or part thereof which has been illegally constructed or which is at
variance with the plan sanctioned for the purpose of construction.
6. Accordingly, the District Collector will look into the appellants'
allegations in each case as to the perceived illegal construction made by the
respondents. The District Collector will also look into the objections that
the relevant buildings are not permitted to be used otherwise than for
residential purpose. If the District Collector finds any force in the
submission of the appellants herein, the District Collector will afford the
respondents-owners of the shops or bars an opportunity of hearing and
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)Nos.763, 764 and 965 of 2021
dispose of the appellants' objections within eight weeks of the receipt of a
copy of this order.
7. It is made clear that the merits of the allegations levelled by the
appellants have not been gone into. The orders impugned dated March 23,
2021 stand modified to the above extent. If any illegality is found necessary
remedial measures have to be taken immediately, including closing the
shops and bars, if necessary.
8. W.A.(MD)Nos.763, 764 and 965 of 2021 are disposed of. There
will be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous
petitions are closed.
(S.B., CJ.) (T.S.S., J.)
24.06.2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
sj/pkn
Note : In view of the present lock down
owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web
copy of the order may be utilized for
official purposes, but, ensuring that
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)Nos.763, 764 and 965 of 2021
the copy of the order that is presented
is the correct copy, shall be the
responsibility of the advocate/litigant
concerned.
To:
1. The Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St.George, Park Town,
Chennai – 600 003.
2. The District Collector,
Tiruchirappalli District,
Cantonment, Tiruchirappalli-620 001.
3. District Manager,
TASMAC Limited,
72, C.P.3, SIDCO Estate,
BHEL Nagar, Thuvakudi,
Tiruchirappalli – 620 015.
4. The Managing Director,
TASMAC,
CMDA Tower-II, IV Floor,
Gandhi Irwin Bridge Road,
Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.
(Respondents in both Writ Appeals)
5. The Commissioner,
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)Nos.763, 764 and 965 of 2021
Tiruchirappalli City Municipal Corporation,
No.58, Bharathidasan Salai,
Cantonment, Tiruchirappalli-620 001.
6. The City Commissioner,
Tiruchirappalli City Municipal Corporation,
No.58, Bharathidasan Salai,
Cantonment, Tiruchirappalli-620 001.
7. The Executive Engineer (West),
Tiruchirappalli City Municipal Corporation,
No.58, Bharathidasan Salai,
Cantonment, Tiruchirappalli-620 001.
8. The Assistant Executive Engineer,
Planning Department,
Tiruchirappalli City Municipal Corporation,
No.58, Bharathidasan Salai,
Cantonment, Tiruchirappalli-620 001.
9. Junior Engineer,
Planning Department,
Tiruchirappalli City Municipal Corporation,
No.58, Bharathidasan Salai,
Cantonment, Tiruchirappalli-620 001.
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)Nos.763, 764 and 965 of 2021
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE
and
T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.
sj/pkn
W.A.(MD)Nos. 763, 764 and 965 of 2021
24.06.2021
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
