AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P. Sathasivam, J.—In view of the limited issue raised, the main writ petitions themselves are taken up for disposal and they are being
disposed of by the following order.
Petitioners, who are unsuccessful in getting IMFL licence, questioning the licence granted in favour of the fourth respondent in all the writ
petitions, have filed the above writ petitions.
Heard the counsel for the petitioners as well as the respondents. In view of the limited issue raised, it is unnecessary to refer the factual matrix as
arrayed in the affidavit of the petitioners and the counter affidavit of the respondents.
Learned counsel for the petitioners by drawing my attention to Rule 5(1) of the Tamil Nadu Liquor (Retain Vending) Rules, 1989 would
contend that it is incumbent on the part of the District Collector, Trichirapalli District, the first respondent herein, to issue notice in Form I-A inviting
application for the grant of privilege of retail vending of liquor. According to him the first respondent has not complied with the said provision. It is
brought to my notice by the counsel for the petitioners that without issuing notice in Form I-A, the District Collector has made a Press statement
informing that additional shops would be opened at Thurayur municipality and in the Musiri, Thottiam, Katuputhur, S. Kannanur and Mettupalayam
town panchayats and in 14 village panchayats. It is the grievance of the petitioners that for non compliance of the notice in Form I-A, they were
deprived of applying for licence to run IMFL shop, accordingly the licence issued in favour of the fourth respondent is liable to be quashed.
It is true that it is incumbent on the part of the first respondent to invite application by issuing notice in Form I-A and the said notice in Form I-A
shall be published in one Tamil Daily and one English daily in that district by the Collector in advance inviting the application for grant of privilege
and also inform the last date for receipt of applications. Though the present notice is not in terms of Form I-A, the first respondent has conveyed
that new shops would be opened in certain places and the last date of receipt of the application forms is November 19. It is true that the said
statement or information cannot be construed as sufficient compliance in terms of Rule 5(1) and (2) of the Tamil Nadu Liquor (Retain Vending)
Rules, 1989 and Form I-A. However, the learned counsel for the fourth respondent has brought to my notice the information relating to opening of
additional IMFL shops published in Malai Murasu on 16.11.2001, Malai Malar on 17.11.2001, Dinamalar on 18.11.2001, Daily Thanthi on
18.11.2001 and Sunday Express on 18.11.2001. It is also brought to my notice that pursuant to the information, several persons applied for the
same. Learned Special Government Pleader has also brought to my notice that notice was also published in the Notice Board of the Office of the
Collectorate on 16.11.2001. He has produced the file relating to publication of notice in the notice board of the Collectorate. It is also brought to
my notice that licence expires by 31.7.2002.
Taking note of all the above aspects, though the first respondent has not strictly complied with the Rules referred above, in the light of the details
furnished in various dailies, it is taken that there is sufficient compliance of statutory provisions. I have already stated that licensing period is going to
end by 31.7.2002. At this juncture, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned proceedings of the first respondent. This Court hopes that
atleast in future the first respondent will adhere and comply with the statutory provisions referred to above. With the above observations, the writ
petitions are disposed of. No costs. Consequently, WPMP.Nos.29411 to 290414 of 2002 are closed.