Madras High Court Dismisses Building Owners' Plea Challenging Closure Of 500 TASMAC Retail Shops, Cites Involvement Of 'Personal Interest'

Questioning the petitioners' locus standi, Justice Krishnan Ramasamy observed that they were not the right persons to challenge the government decision and though the pleas were filed in the nature of a Public Interest Litigation, the motive seemed to be to achieve personal interest.

“That apart, the petitioners being the owners of the property, they are not the right persons to challenge the policy decision made by the Government to close down the TASMAC retail shops which is in public interest. The writ petitions filed by the petitioners appear to be in the nature of Public Interest Litigation but the motive is to achieve their personal interest,” the court observed.

The petitioners (building owners) had challenged an order of the TASMAC Managing Director directing closure of 500 TASMAC retail shops as they did not meet the criteria mentioned in the impugned order. They submitted that consequent to the leases, shops and bars had been built up in the properties, involving substantial investments. If the shops were suddenly closed, they would incur huge losses.

The building owners also pointed out that the Principal Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department had framed certain guidelines for closure of the retail shops which were not followed in the present case. Since the closure was not in compliance of the guidelines, the closure order ought to be set aside and the retail shops reopened.

The respondents, on the other hand, challenged the locus of the building owners to file the petitions. It was argued that the authorities were competent to decide on running or closing down of TASMAC retail shops. It was further submitted that if the building owners had any grievance, they could approach the appropriate forum.

The court agreed with the respondents' submission and observed that the relationship between the parties was of landlord-tenant, where the tenant was entitled to take a decision to close down the business. If the owner was aggrieved by such decision, his remedy was to approach the appropriate forum, not file a writ petition.

The court also made it clear that it was not inclined to interfere, as the policy decision to close down the 500 TASMAC retail shops was in public interest. It added that the guidelines framed were not mandatory, but only guiding in nature, and even if there was a contravention of the guidelines, it did not invalidate the ultimate decision to close down the shops.

Accordingly, the court dismissed the petitions. The building owners were given liberty to approach the respondents and make representations ventilating their grievances.

Counsels for Petitioners: Advocate PG Santhosh Kumar; Advocate Hari Radhakrishnan; Advocate Avinash Wadhwani for Advocate M Manimaran

Counsels for Respondents: Addl Advocate General J Ravindran assisted by Advocate K Sathish Kumar; Standing Counsel K Balakrishnan for TASMAC; Addl. Govt Pleader K Surendran for respondent No.1

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 386

Case Title: S. Panneerselvam v. The Principal Secretary to Government and Others, W.P.No.26179 of 2023 (and connected matters)