M.Venkatesan v. The Managing Director (Tasmac)

ORDER This writ petition has been filed, challenging the impugned order dated

12.01.2026 passed by the second respondent, insisting the petitioner to produce the no objection letter and the renewed lease deed to be issued by the third respondent for the further period from 31.12.2025 to run the bar in the TASMAC Shop at the premises, morefully described in the prayer to this writ petition.

2.The petitioner has challenged the impugned order on the ground that the second respondent by total non-application of mind to the order dated

08.01.2026 passed in W.P. No.375 of 2026 has passed the impugned order. Earlier, the petitioner had approached this Court by filing the aforesaid writ petition and by order dated 08.01.2026, this Court had directed the second respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 20.12.2025 seeking for renewal of bar licence in favour of the petitioner for the TASMAC shop attached to the bar at the premises, morefully described in the prayer to this writ petition, within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of the said order, after hearing the objections of the third respondent, who is the landlord as well as any other third party whom the first respondent deems fit to enquire, after giving due consideration to the Circular dated ...12.2025 issued by the TASMAC in RC. No.Q6/E238515/2025. However, as seen from the impugned order, without giving due consideration to the earlier order dated 08.01.2026 passed by this Court in W.P. No.375 of 2026, the second respondent has once again insisted the petitioner to produce the no objection letter and the renewed lease deed to be issued by the third respondent for the further period from

31.12.2025 to run the bar in the TASMAC shop at the premises, morefully described in the prayer to this writ petition.

3.The grievance of the petitioner is that the order dated 08.01.2026 passed by this Court in W.P. No.375 of 2026 has not been adhered to by the second respondent before passing the impugned order.

4.Mr.K.Balakrishnan, learned Standing Counsel, who accepts notice on behalf of the respondents, submits on instructions that the respondents shall strictly adhere to the directions issued by this Court on 08.01.2026 in W.P. No.375 of 2026.

5.Since no adverse order is being passed against the third respondent in this writ petition, notice to the third respondent is dispensed with in this writ petition.

6.Admittedly, as seen from the impugned order, the direction issued by this Court on 08.01.2026 in W.P. No.375 of 2026 has not been adhered to. In view of the same, necessarily, the request of the petitioner has to be re-considered once again in the light of the directions issued by this Court on

08.01.2026 in W.P. No.375 of 2026, which is the earlier writ petition filed by the very same petitioner before this Court.

7.Since the impugned order has been passed by total non-application of mind to the earlier order dated 08.01.2026 passed by this Court in W.P. No.375 of 2026, the impugned order has to be quashed and the matter has to be remanded back to the very same respondent for fresh consideration as per the directions issued issued by this Court on 08.01.2026 in W.P. No.375 of 2026.

8.For the foregoing reasons, this writ petition is disposed of and the impugned order dated 12.01.2026 passed by the second respondent is hereby quashed and the matter is remanded back to the very same respondent for fresh consideration. The second respondent shall pass final orders, on merits and in accordance with law on the petitioner's representation dated 20.12.2025 seeking for renewal of bar licence in favour of the petitioner for the TASMAC shop attached to the bar at the premises, morefully described in the prayer to this writ petition, as directed by this Court in the earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner, on 08.01.2026 in W.P. No.375 of 2026, after hearing the objections of the third respondent and any other third party whom the first respondent deems fit to enquire, after giving due consideration to the Circular dated ...12.2025 issued by the TASMAC in RC.No.Q6/E238515/2025. The respondents shall strictly adhere to the directions issued by this Court on 08.01.2026 in the earlier writ petition i.e. W.P. No.375 of 2026. Consequently, connected WMP is closed. No costs. 28-01-2026 vga To

1.The Managing Director (tasmac) Tower II, Floof, Gandhi Irwin road, Egmore Chennai 8

2.The District manager TASMAc Ltd Kancheepuram (north) District No 1 bangalore Highways Road, Chennai 600 123 WPeNo.e2634eofe2026 ABDULoQUDDHOSEoJ. vga WPoNo.o2634oofo2026 ANDoWMPoNO.o2873o OFo2026 28-01-2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 28-01-2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE WP No. 2634 of 2026 AND WMP NO. 2873 OF 2026 M.Venkatesan Petitioner(s) Vs 1. The Managing Director (tasmac) Tower II, Floof, Gandhi Irwin road, Egmore Chennai 8 2.The District manager TASMAc Ltd Kancheepuram (north) District No 1 bangalore Highways Road, Chennai 600 123 3.G.Vijayarani Respondent(s) PRAYER Calling for the records in Na.Ka. En A3/ 4386/ 2026 dated 12.01.2026 on the file of the 2nd respondent and further directing the respondents particularly the 2nd respondent the District manager (TASMAC) kancheepuram (North) Distrct form insisting the petitioner to produce the No objection letter and the renewed lease deed to the issued by the 3rd respondent for the further period form 31.12.2025 to run the Bar in the TASMAC shop No 4386 at 4/ 885 Perambakkam Main road, Medavakkam Village, Sholinganallur Taluk, Chenglapet District. For Petitioner(s): MR.Avinash Wadhwani for Mr.M.Manimaran For Respondent(s): MR.K.Balakrishnan Standing Counsel for R1 and R2