Recently, the Madras High Court rejected a petition brought forth by building owners who contested the decision of the Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Limited ("TASMAC") to shut down 500 TASMAC shops running in their their leased-out properties.

Justice Krishnan Ramasamy remarked that the individuals bringing the petition were not the appropriate parties to contest the government's decision. Despite being filed as Public Interest Litigation, the intent appeared to revolve around personal gain rather than serving public welfare.

The petitioners, who were building owners, contested a directive from the TASMAC Managing Director instructing the closure of 500 TASMAC retail shops due to their failure to meet specific criteria outlined in the contested order. They highlighted that substantial investments had been made in erecting shops and bars on the leased properties. They expressed concerns that an abrupt closure would lead to significant financial losses for them.

The building owners additionally highlighted that the Principal Secretary to the Government, Home, Prohibition, and Excise Department had established specific guidelines for the closure of retail shops, which were not adhered to in this instance. They argued that because the closure did not align with these guidelines, the order to shut down the retail shops should be nullified, and the shops should be allowed to resume operations.

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' argument and noted that the relationship between the involved parties resembled that of a landlord-tenant. In this scenario, the tenant possessed the entitlement to make decisions regarding the closure of the business. If the owner found dissatisfaction with such a decision, the proper recourse was to seek remedy through the relevant forum rather than initiating 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. 

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