HC pulls up Thanjavur collector for granting nod to open Tasmac shop

Madurai: Pulling up the Thanjavur district collector for passing an order to open a Tasmac shop in Perumagalur without conducting proper inquiry on the objections raised, Madras high court directed the authorities to close the shop.

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. Pursuant to public agitation and a peace committee meeting the proposal was dropped. Subsequently, the collector passed an order granting permission to open a Tasmac shop in another location in the same street.

He stated that he had moved court in 2025 challenging the order. In March 2026, the court had directed the collector to consider the objections and take a decision. He claimed that the shop was open in a hurried manner without considering the objections. Therefore, the petitioner filed a contempt petition seeking action against the authorities. He also filed another petition seeking a direction to close the shop.

The petitioner’s counsel submitted that none of the objections raised by the petitioner were considered. The collector had passed an order to open the shop on the basis of the representation of the district manager of Tasmac, stating that alcoholics have to go to the shop in the nearby village all times during the day and night, which resulted in several accidents and robberies were committed and therefore the shop should be located in Perumagalur itself as per the request made by a women’s association.

However, the state submitted that only after considering the objections the order was passed by the collector. The counsel for Tasmac submitted that in order to prevent illegal sales of liquor, the location was selected after considering that there is no other prohibited place of worship or school, etc., within 100m.

Justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy observed that from the affidavit filed by the collector, it appears that she was busy with the electoral roll and other matters, she deputed the district revenue officer to conduct an enquiry. The procedure adopted by the collector to depute some other official to hear the objections, and thereafter passing an order based on oral interaction with the DRO is absolutely illegal and incorrect.

The judge observed that neither the Tasmac nor the women’s association can defame the state as if robberies are taking place. False reasons have been submitted before the collector and that too defaming the state and its people. The collector should have inquired whether such a grave situation is prevalent. The indifference shocks the court’s conscience.

Hence, the judge quashed the order granting permission to open the Tasmac shop and directed the authorities to close it. The collector shall conduct a fresh inquiry on the objections made by the petitioner and others and pass an order in accordance with law.