Madras High Court
The Secretary vs M.Suseela ... 1St on 24 April, 2025
Author: G.R.Swaminathan
Bench: G.R.Swaminathan
1 W.A.(MD)NO.1403 OF 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 24.04.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN
W.A.(MD)No.1403 of 2022 AND
W.A.(MD)No.682 of 2025 &
C.M.P.(MD)No.11257 of 2022 & 4833 of 2025
W.A.(MD)No.1403 of 2022
The Secretary,
Raghaa Recreation Club,
Door No.4/463, Puliyankulam Village,
Inam Rettiarpatti Road,
Virudhunagar Taluk and District. ... Appellant / 4th Respondent
Vs.
1. M.Suseela ... 1st Respondent / Petitioner
2. The Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise,
Chepauk,
Chennai – 600 005.
3. The District Collector,
Virudhunagar District,
Virudhunagar.
4. The Divisional Excise Officer,
Aruppukottai,
Aruppukottai Division,
Virudhunagar District. ... Respondents 2 to 4 /
Respondents 1 to 3
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/05/2025 11:34:39 am )
2 W.A.(MD)NO.1403 OF 2022
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent
Act, to set aside the impugned order dated 13.10.2022 made in W.P.
(MD)No.9831 of 2018 on the file of this Court and allow the writ
appeal.
For Appellant : Mr.M.Sricharan Rangarajan,
Senior counsel,
for Mr.K.Rajeshwaran.
For R-2 to R-4 : Mr.Veera Kathiravan,
Additional Advocate General,
assisted by,
Mr.S.R.A.Ramachandran,
Additional Government Pleader.
For R-1 : Mr.P.Mohammed Suhail,
for M/s.Ajmal Associates.
***
W.A.(MD)No.682 of 2025
1. The Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise,
Chepauk,
Chennai – 600 005.
2. The District Collector,
Virudhunagar District,
Virudhunagar.
3. The Divisional Excise Officer,
Aruppukottai,
Aruppukottai Division,
Virudhunagar District. ... Appellants / Respondents 1 to 3
Vs.
1. M.Suseela ... 1st Respondent / Writ petitioner
2/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/05/2025 11:34:39 am )
3 W.A.(MD)NO.1403 OF 2022
2. The Secretary,
Raghaa Recreation Club,
Door No.4/463, Puliyankulam Village,
Inam Rettiarpatti Road,
Virudhunagar Taluk and District. ... 2nd Respondent /
4th Respondent
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent
Act, to set aside the impugned order dated 13.10.2022 made in W.P.
(MD)No.9831 of 2018 on the file of this Court and allow the writ
appeal.
For Appellants : Mr.Veera Kathiravan,
Additional Advocate General,
assisted by,
Mr.S.R.A.Ramachandran,
Additional Government Pleader.
For R-2 : Mr.M.Sricharan Rangarajan,
Senior counsel,
for Mr.K.Rajeshwaran.
For R-1 : Mr.P.Mohammed Suhail,
for M/s.Ajmal Associates.
***
COMMON JUDGMENT
(Order of the Court was delivered by G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.)
Heard both sides.
2. One M.Suseela filed W.P.(MD)No.9831 of 2018 questioning
the grant of FL2 license in favour of one Raghaa Recreation Club,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/05/2025 11:34:39 am )
Inam Rettiarpatti Road, Puliyankulam Village, Virudhunagar District.
The writ petition was allowed vide order dated 13.10.2022.
Challenging the same, the licensee filed W.A.(MD)No.1403 of 2022
and the State also filed W.A.(MD)No.682 of 2025.
3. The learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the
State as well as the learned senior counsel appearing for the club
contended that the learned single Judge erred in allowing the writ
petition and setting aside the grant of license even though there were
no statutory violations. They called upon this Court to set aside the
order impugned in the writ appeals and dismiss the writ petition.
4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the writ
petitioner contended that the learned single Judge rightly allowed
the writ petition and interference is not warranted. He pointed out
that the club is located within the striking distance of the unit run by
the petitioner. He pointed out that the said unit is run entirely by
womenfolk and that the running of the club would pose serious
nuisance to them. The learned counsel relied on a catena of case laws.
He pointed out that this Court should not go merely by the statutory
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/05/2025 11:34:39 am )
norms but also take into account the public interest involved. He
pointed out that even though objections were raised by the members
of the locality, they were not taken into account by the District
Collector before the grant of license. Particular reliance was placed
on the decision reported in 2010 (2) CWC 337 (The Tamil Nadu
State Marketing Corporation Ltd., V. R.M.Shah), 2012 (6) CTC 661
(G.Vetrivel V. Golden Enclave Owners' Association) and 2014(4)
CTC 721 (M.A.Sudhagar V. The Government of Tamil Nadu) and
also the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2017) 2
SCC 281 (State of Tamil Nadu V. K.Balu). He wants this Court to
sustain the order of the learned single Judge and dismiss the writ
appeals.
5. We carefully considered the rival contentions and went
through the materials on record.
6. One aspect has to be noted at the very outset. The license in
favour of the club was granted on 13.04.2018. The writ petition was
filed on 25.04.2018. But no interim order was granted. When the writ
petition came to be allowed on 13.10.2022, it was a running club
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/05/2025 11:34:39 am )
with license. After the writ petition was allowed, in the writ appeal,
interim order was granted and as on date, the license is subsisting.
7. It is also relevant to note that one Perumalsamy had filed
W.P.(MD)No.7235 of 2018 to forbear the authorities from granting
license in favour of Raghaa Recreation Club. The said writ petition
was dismissed as withdrawn on 04.04.2018. Subsequently, the very
same Perumalsamy filed W.P.(MD)No.12684 of 2018 questioning the
order dated 13.04.2018 which is the subject matter of challenge in
W.P.(MD)No.9831 of 2018 also. It is submitted by the learned Senior
counsel appearing for the appellant that since in Suseela's writ
petition, no interim order was granted, Perumalsamy was made to
file a fresh writ petition challenging the issuance of license. This writ
petition was dismissed on 05.07.2018 by taking note of the conduct
of the petitioner therein. The scope of considering the validity of FL2
license in PIL is one thing. However, a different yardstick would be
applied when it is at the instance of an aggrieved party. Suseela did
not file any PIL. She only filed WP before the learned single Judge.
Therefore, we will only consider if there is any statutory violation.
This is because the Division Bench considering a PIL on the same
subject matter declined to interfere.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/05/2025 11:34:39 am )
8. The only grievance put forth by Suseela is that she is running
her industrial unit in the vicinity. Actually it is her husband's factory.
On facts, the distance between the club and the said unit is around
150 meters. We are informed by the learned Additional Advocate
General that before granting license, there was field inspection by all
the authorities concerned. The learned counsel for the writ
petitioner states that the objection lodged by the villagers ought to
have been considered by the District Collector by passing a speaking
order before granting license. It is true that as per Rule 8 of the Tamil
Nadu Liquor Retail Vending (in Shops and Bars) Rules, 2003,
approval shall be given only after the representation, if any, objecting
the location of the shop is considered and orders passed thereon. But
then, this was an amendment to the statutory rule made in February
2022. In this case, license was issued in 2018. At that time, there was
no legal requirement on the part of the District Collector to pass a
speaking order on the objections originally. Rule 8(3) cannot be
retrospectively applied to test the validity of the order impugned in
the writ petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/05/2025 11:34:39 am )
9. It is true that during the pendency of the writ petition, a
murder took place within the club premises. An event that happened
subsequently in the club premises cannot be a ground for
invalidating the license earlier granted. The records indicate that all
the statutory formalities and procedure were complied with. NOC
was also obtained from the police. The validity of the order granting
license has to be tested in the light of the statutory rules. The writ
petitioner has not able to cite a single statutory violation. We are
satisfied that the license was validly granted. The learned single
Judge was not justified in allowing the writ petition. Therefore, the
order impugned in the writ appeals is set aside. These writ appeals
are allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous
petitions are closed.
(G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.) & (M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.)
24th April 2025
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/ No
PMU
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/05/2025 11:34:39 am )
To:
1. The Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise,
Chepauk,
Chennai – 600 005.
2. The District Collector,
Virudhunagar District,
Virudhunagar.
3. The Divisional Excise Officer,
Aruppukottai,
Aruppukottai Division,
Virudhunagar District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/05/2025 11:34:39 am )
G.R.SWAMINATHAN,J.
AND
M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.
PMU
W.A.(MD)No.1403 of 2022 AND
24.04.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/05/2025 11:34:39 am )
