AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S. Jagadeesan, J.—Government Pleader takes notice. With the consent of both parties, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal.
The 2nd petitioner is a licence holder to run IMFL shop. Under the impugned proceedings, the 2nd petitioner has been directed to apply for a
licence for running a Bar attached to his IMFL shop. The contention of the 2nd petitioner is that G.O.Ms.No.113, Prohibition and Excise
Department, dated 23.4.2002, which permits the IMFL licence holders to run the Bar, gives an option to choose between whether to run or not to
run the Bar. There is no compulsion that everyone of the IMFL licensees must open a Bar and obtain a licence therefore. When a discretion is
given to the licensees, it is not open to the authorities to compel the IMFL licensees to obtain the Bar licence. It is therefore contended that the
impugned proceedings is illegal.
The learned Government Pleader fairly conceded that G.O.Ms.No.113, dated 23.4.2002, was brought in only to avoid the illegal running of
Bars by IMFL licensees and if the petitioner gives an undertaking that he will not run a Bar illegally, he need not obtain the licence.
I have carefully considered the above contentions of both the counsel. When there is no obligation on the part of the petitioner to compulsorily
obtain the licence and to run the Bar, the impugned proceedings directing the 2nd petitioner to deposit the necessary licence fee for running the Bar
cannot be sustained. Only if the petitioner wants to run the Bar, it is obligatory on the part of the petitioner to obtain a licence. It is not open to the
respondents to compel the petitioner to get the licence. Hence, the impugned proceedings of the 3rd respondent cannot be sustained. Accordingly,
the same is quashed. The writ petition is allowed.
It is, however, made clear that the 3rd respondent is at liberty to take appropriate action against the 3rd petitioner if he chooses to run the Bar
illegally.
The writ petition is confined to the 2nd petitioner Thangavel alone. So far as the other four petitioners are concerned, the writ petition is
dismissed since no proceedings against them have been produced. Further, the petition filed under Rule 2-B of the Appellate Side Rules cannot be
maintained in view of the nature of the relief sought for in the writ petition. The 2B petition is, therefore, dismissed. W.P.M.P.Nos.21823 and
21824 of 2002 are closed.