Nagai and Mailaduthurai District v. The District Collector

ORDER (Order of the Court was made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice) This petition has been filed seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus for re-location of existing TASMAC shop No.5756 from market place of Mangaimadam Village, Seerkazhi Taluk, Mailaduthurai District, to some other place as per Peace Talk Resolution dated

24.07.2025 on the file of the third respondent.

¶2After going through the petition, we do not find that the location of the shop is statutorily prohibited, as provided under Rule 8 of the Tamil Nadu Liquor Retail Vending (in Shops and Bars) Rules, 2003.

¶3It, however, appears that the residents of the area allegedly represented by the petitioner-association are raising protest and a peace talk meeting was arranged on 24.07.2025 followed by a memorandum of Revenue Divisional Officer, Seerkazhi, to the Taluk Magistrate with a request to conduct a site inspection and take appropriate action in this regard.

¶4A writ of mandamus can be issued only to perform a statutory obligation. Since there is no statutory violation, no rule can be issued. In the case of Hari Krishna Mandir Trust v. State of Maharashtra,

(2020) 9 SCC 356, following observations were made: "100. The   High   Courts   exercising   their   jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, not only have the power to issue a writ of mandamus or in the nature of mandamus, but are duty-bound to exercise such power,  where the Government or a public authority has failed   to   exercise   or   has   wrongly   exercised   discretion conferred   upon   it   by   a   statute,   or   a   rule,   or   a   policy decision   of   the   Government   or   has   exercised   such discretion mala fide, or on irrelevant consideration. ...

102. In appropriate cases, in order to prevent injustice to the parties, the Court may itself pass an order or give directions which the Government or the public authorities should have passed, had it properly and lawfully exercised its   discretion.   In Director   of   Settlements,   A.P. v. M.R. Apparao, (2002) 4 SCC 638, Pattanaik, J. observed: "17.   …   One   of   the   conditions   for   exercising power   under   Article   226   for   issuance   of   a mandamus is that the court must come to the conclusion   that   the   aggrieved   person   has   a legal right, which entitles him to any of the rights and that such right has been infringed. In other words, existence of a legal right of a citizen and performance of any corresponding legal duty by the State or any public authority, could   be   enforced   by   issuance   of   a   writ   of mandamus, "mandamus" means a command. It   differs   from   the   writs   of   prohibition   or certiorari in its demand for some activity on the part of the body or person to whom it is addressed. Mandamus is a command issued to direct any person, corporation, inferior courts or Government, requiring him or them to do some particular thing therein specified which appertains to his or their office and is in the nature   of   a   public   duty.   A   mandamus   is available against any public authority including administrative and local bodies, and it would lie to any person who is under a duty imposed by a statute or by the common law to do a particular   act.   In   order   to   obtain   a   writ   or order   in   the   nature   of   mandamus,   the applicant   has   to   satisfy   that   he   has   a   legal right to the performance of a legal duty by the party against whom the mandamus is sought and such right must be subsisting on the date of   the   petition (seeKalyan   Singh v. State   of U.P. [Kalyan Singh v. State of U.P., AIR 1962 SC 1183] ). The duty that may be enjoined by mandamus   may   be   one   imposed   by   the Constitution,   a   statute,   common   law   or   by rules or orders having the force of law."

103. The   Court   is   duty-bound   to   issue   a   writ   of mandamus for enforcement of a public duty. There can be no   doubt   that   an   important   requisite   for   issue   of mandamus is that mandamus lies to enforce a legal duty. This duty must be shown to exist towards the applicant. A statutory   duty   must   exist   before   it   can   be   enforced through mandamus. Unless a statutory duty or right can be read in the provision, mandamus cannot be issued to enforce the same." [emphasis supplied]

¶5In that view of the matter, we are not inclined to issue any mandamus. We leave it open for the authorities to consider the representation of the petitioner. Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, CJ.) (G.ARUL MURUGAN, J.)

29.01.2026 Index : Yes/No : Yes/No sra To

¶1The District Collector, O/o. District Collector, Mailaduthurai District.

¶2The Revenue Divisional Officer, O/o. Revenue Division Office, Seerkazhi Revenue Division, Seerkazhi, Mailaduthurai District.

¶3The Thasildhar, O/o.Seerkazhi Thaluk Office, Seerkazhi, Mailaduthurai District.

¶4The Manager, O/o. District Manager of TASMAC, Nagapattinam District.

¶5The Deputy Manager, TASMAC, Thirubuvanam, Mailaduthurai District. THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND

G.ARUL MURUGAN, J.

(sra)

29.01.2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 29.01.2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN Nagai & Mailaduthurai District Consumer Protection, Awarness Service Organization, K.G.Ramachandran, District President, Office at Saraboji Agragaram, Thiruvnekadu, Sirkazhi Taluk, Mailaduthurai District. .. Petitioner -vs- 1. The District Collector, O/o. District Collector, Mailaduthurai District. 2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, O/o. Revenue Division Office, Seerkazhi Revenue Division, Seerkazhi, Mailaduthurai District. 3. The Thasildhar, O/o.Seerkazhi Thaluk Office, Seerkazhi, Mailaduthurai District. 4. The Manager, O/o. District Manager of TASMAC, Nagapattinam District. 5. The Deputy Manager, TASMAC, Thirubuvanam, Mailaduthurai District. .. Respondents Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the 4th and 5th respondents to transfer the TAZMAC Shop No.5756 from Market Place of Mangaimadam Village, Seerkazhi Taluk, Mailaduthurai District to other place as per the peace talking resolution vide No.Pa.Ve.10/2025/A2 dated 24.07.2025 on the file of the 3rd respondent. For Petitioner : Mr.P.Muthamizhselvakumar For Respondents : Mr.E.Vijay Anand Addl. Govt. Pleader, for RR 1 to 3 : Mr.K.Balakrishnan Stdg. Counsel for RR 4 and 5 * * *