Durairaj v. The Commissioner, Prohibition and Excise Department
WP Crl.(MD)/1943/2025 · 2026-01-28
S Srimathy
Transfer Petitionbody2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 95514 (MAD) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 95514 (MAD) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 28.01.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY WP Crl.(MD) NO. 1943 of 2025 Durairaj Petitioner Vs 1.The Commissioner, Prohibition and excise department, Chepauk, Chennai – 600005. 2.The District Collector, Office of the District Collector, Thanjavur District. 3.The Superintendent of Police, Office of the Superintendent of Police, Thanjavur District. 4.The Assistant Commissioner, Prohibition and Excise Department, Office of the District Collector, Thanjavur District. 5.The Inspector of Police, Thanjavur Taluk Police Station, Thanjavur District. ...Respondents For Petitioner : Mr.K.P.S.Palanivel Rajan
Senior Counsel
For Mr.S.Ramakrishnan For Respondent(s): Mr.P.Thambidurai,
Government Advocate for R1, R2 & R4 Mr.A.S.Abul Kalaam Azad,
Government Advocate (Crl.side) for R3 & R5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Prayer:Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the 3rd respondent pertaining to the impugned proceedings vide Na.Ka.No.C1/16591/2024 dated 27.05.2025, to quash the same and consequently, to direct the respondents to reconsider and grant FL-2 license to the petitioner.
ORDER The present Writ Petition has been filed for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the 3rd respondent pertaining to the impugned proceedings vide Na.Ka.No.C1/16591/2024 dated 27.05.2025, to quash the same and consequently, to direct the respondents to reconsider and grant FL-2 license to the petitioner. 2.Through the impugned order the respondents have refused to grant FL-2 license. The reasons stated is that the same would affect the common people and law and order problem would arise. 3.The Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the respondents have granted license to a TASMAC Shop adjacent to be place and relied on the approval letter granted to the TASMAC Shop, wherein it has been stated that no law and order problems would arise. However, it is not known how the law and
order problem would arise, if the petitioner is granted FL-2 license and how the law and order problem would not arise, if approval is granted to the TASMAC Shop. 4.This Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order is passed by https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
non application of mind. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside and respondents are directed to reconsider the issue within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 5.With the above observations, this Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no
order as to costs. 28.01.2026 Tmg To 1.The Commissioner, Prohibition and excise department, Chepauk, Chennai – 600005. 2.The District Collector, Office of the District Collector, Thanjavur District. 3.The Superintendent of Police, Office of the Superintendent of Police, Thanjavur District. 4.The Assistant Commissioner, Prohibition and Excise Department, Office of the District Collector, Thanjavur District. 5.The Inspector of Police, Thanjavur Taluk Police Station, Thanjavur District. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis