The Madras High Court has pulled up the Thanjavur district collector for passing an order to open a Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation (Tasmac) shop in Perumagalur without conducting a proper inquiry on the objections raised. The court directed the authorities to close the shop.
Petition Details
The court was hearing petitions filed by K S Ravichandran. The petitioner stated that the authorities earlier proposed to open a Tasmac shop in Netaji Nagar in Perumagalur. However, following public agitation and a peace committee meeting, the proposal was dropped. Subsequently, the collector passed an order granting permission to open a Tasmac shop at another location in the same street.
Ravichandran had moved the court in 2025 challenging the order. In March 2026, the court directed the collector to consider the objections and take a decision. The petitioner claimed that the shop was opened in a hurried manner without considering the objections. Consequently, he filed a contempt petition seeking action against the authorities and another petition seeking a direction to close the shop.
Arguments Presented
The petitioner’s counsel submitted that none of the objections raised were considered. The collector had passed the order based on a representation from the district manager of Tasmac, which stated that alcoholics had to travel to a shop in a nearby village at all times, resulting in several accidents and robberies. It was further claimed that a women’s association requested the shop be located in Perumagalur itself.
However, the state submitted that the order was passed only after considering the objections. The counsel for Tasmac argued that to prevent illegal sales of liquor, the location was selected after confirming there was no prohibited place of worship or school within 100 meters.
Court's Observations
Justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy observed that from the affidavit filed by the collector, it appeared she was busy with electoral roll and other matters and deputed the district revenue officer (DRO) to conduct an inquiry. The procedure adopted by the collector to depute another official to hear objections and then pass an order based on oral interaction with the DRO was absolutely illegal and incorrect.
The judge noted that neither Tasmac nor the women’s association could defame the state by claiming robberies were taking place. False reasons were submitted before the collector, defaming the state and its people. The collector should have inquired whether such a grave situation actually prevailed. The indifference shocked the court’s conscience.
Final Order
The judge quashed the order granting permission to open the Tasmac shop and directed the authorities to close it. The collector was ordered to conduct a fresh inquiry on the objections made by the petitioner and others and pass an order in accordance with law.
