Authorities must notify the petitioner and consider existing judicial restraint before granting an FL2 licence.

The petitioner filed a Public Interest Litigation under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking to restrain the respondents from establishing a retail TASMAC outlet or granting an FL2 licence for retail vending of liquor at Tharavaithoppu Village, Ramanathapuram District.

The petitioner relied on an agreement dated 18 June 2026 between Dhandapani and Manoj concerning the use of premises at Door No.5/3501/6, Tharavaithoppu Village, for an FL2-licensed shop under the name “Manamagizh Mandram,” and alleged that the arrangement was a device to open a liquor shop.

He had submitted a representation to the authorities on 27 August 2026.

The Assistant Commissioner of Excise informed the Court that no application for permission to open an FL2 licence shop had been forwarded, but stated that objections and public views would be considered if an application was received.

Whether the Court should issue a mandamus restraining the respondents from granting permission for, or establishing, a TASMAC outlet or FL2-licensed liquor shop at Tharavaithoppu Village/Rameshwaram.

Whether the authorities were required to consider the effect of the earlier Division Bench order dated 25 November 2019 in W.P.(MD) No.24952 of 2019 and provide notice to the petitioner if an application for an FL2 licence was received.

The Court exercised its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution in considering the petitioner’s request for a writ of mandamus.

A mandamus requires a subsisting public duty and a legally cognisable failure by the public authority; it is not ordinarily issued on the basis of a mere apprehension where no administrative application or decision presently exists.

The Court considered the earlier Division Bench order dated 25 November 2019 in W.P.(MD) No.24952 of 2019, stated to have imposed a perpetual restraint on opening a TASMAC outlet at Rameshwaram, together with the subsequent order dated 12 September 2022 in W.P.(MD) No.23721 of 2019, which noted that no sanction for opening a TASMAC shop existed.

The Court further applied the principle that affected members of the public must be heard when an application for an FL2 licence is considered, and directed the competent authority to examine the relevance and effect of the earlier binding order.

The Court found that no application seeking permission to open an FL2 licence shop had been forwarded to the Excise Department, and therefore there was no existing administrative decision or imminent sanction warranting the requested blanket restraint.

Nevertheless, because the petitioner had raised a specific apprehension based on the agreement and relied on the earlier Rameshwaram restraint order, the Court directed the Assistant Commissioner to examine the effect of that order if any application was subsequently received.

The Court also required that the petitioner be put on notice and that public objections and views be considered during the licensing process.

Thus, the Court addressed the petitioner’s grievance through procedural safeguards rather than granting the substantive prohibition sought.

The concerned authority was directed to examine the applicability and effect of the order dated 25 November 2019 in W.P.(MD) No.24952 of 2019 and to notify the petitioner if any application for an FL2 licence was received.

Liberty was granted to the petitioner to approach the Court again if there was any indication of the opening of an FL2 licence shop in Rameshwaram.

No costs were imposed, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.