The Madras High Court has reaffirmed that administrative decisions affecting public interest - such as the reopening of state-owned liquor outlets - must incorporate all relevant stakeholder representations before any final order is passed. This ruling underscores the constitutional obligation of procedural fairness under Article 226, even in seemingly routine licensing matters.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, N. Durai, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking to restrain the reopening of TASMAC Shop No. 4106 at GST Road, Killambakkam, Chengalpattu District. The petitioner contended that the proposed reopening would adversely affect public health, local community welfare, and moral order in the vicinity. The representation submitted by the petitioner on 30 December 2025 remained unaddressed by the authorities, prompting the petition.
Procedural History
- W.P. No. 48441 of 2025: Filed by the landlord, Yuvaraj, challenging the closure of the same TASMAC shop.
- 11 December 2025: The Madras High Court disposed of W.P. No. 48441 of 2025, directing the District Collector to consider a fresh representation from Yuvaraj after affording him a personal hearing.
- 27 January 2026: The present writ petition (W.P. No. 1853 of 2026) was filed by the petitioner opposing the reopening, with the same shop as the subject.
- The District Collector had not yet acted on either representation when this petition came up for hearing.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought a direction to the respondents not to reopen the TASMAC shop and to treat his representation as a formal objection under the relevant licensing framework.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether an administrative authority, having been directed by the High Court to consider representations on a matter, may ignore parallel objections from other stakeholders without violating the principles of natural justice and Article 226.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel, Mr. P. Arumuga Rajan, argued that the District Collector’s failure to consider his representation - despite its direct relevance to the same subject matter under judicial review - constituted a violation of audi alteram partem. He relied on State of U.P. v. Mohammad Noor to assert that administrative decisions affecting public interest must be made after hearing all affected parties, not just those who initiated prior litigation.
For the Respondent
The learned Government Advocate for the first respondent accepted notice and acknowledged that the petitioner’s representation had not been considered. However, he submitted that the matter was already under judicial supervision through W.P. No. 48441 of 2025 and proposed that the petitioner’s objections be merged into the ongoing reconsideration process, which the Court accepted.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the procedural posture of both writ petitions and found that the District Collector was under a judicial mandate to reconsider the reopening of the TASMAC shop in accordance with law. The Court emphasized that the direction issued in W.P. No. 48441 of 2025 was not limited to the landlord’s representation alone but required a comprehensive, lawful, and fair evaluation of all relevant inputs.
"The Court cannot permit administrative inaction to persist merely because one party’s representation was prioritized over another’s. Both the landlord’s request and the petitioner’s objection relate to the same factual matrix and must be weighed together."
The Court held that procedural fairness under Article 226 demands that all stakeholders with legitimate concerns be given an opportunity to be heard before a final administrative decision is rendered. The fact that one party had already approached the Court did not extinguish the rights of others to participate in the reconsideration process. The Court rejected any notion that administrative efficiency could override the constitutional imperative of inclusive decision-making.
The Verdict
The petitioner succeeded. The Court directed the District Collector to consider the petitioner’s objections alongside the landlord’s representation within the stipulated timeframe, ensuring a fair, lawful, and holistic evaluation. The Court explicitly declined to express any opinion on the merits of either representation.
What This Means For Similar Cases
All Stakeholders Must Be Heard
- Practitioners must now ensure that all representations opposing or supporting administrative actions - whether from residents, NGOs, or property owners - are formally submitted and documented.
- Authorities cannot selectively ignore objections merely because another party initiated litigation on the same issue.
Judicial Directions Are Not Limited to the Original Petitioner
- When a court directs an authority to reconsider a decision, the scope of reconsideration includes all relevant submissions received prior to or during the pendency of the order.
- Lawyers should file supplemental representations in pending writ matters to preserve their client’s rights, even if they were not the original petitioners.
Administrative Silence Is Not an Option
- Failure to consider representations within judicial timelines may result in fresh writ petitions being entertained.
- Authorities must maintain a clear record of all submissions received and the reasons for accepting or rejecting them, to avoid allegations of arbitrariness under Article 14.
