WP Crl.(MD)/5869/2026 of M/s.Perumal Manamagil Mandram Vs The Commissioner of Police on 4 November 2026

ORDER

The present Writ Petition has been filed challenging the proceedings dated 04.10.2026 issued by the respondent, whereby the police license granted to the petitioner club under Sections 34 and 35 of the Madras City Police Act, 1888, was cancelled, and seeking a consequential direction to the respondent to renew the said license.

2. The case of the petitioner is that it is a recreation club registered under the Societies Registration Act and that it has been granted an FL2 license by the competent authority for serving liquor to its members and their guests, subject to the applicable statutory provisions and licensing conditions. The petitioner states that it was granted police license bearing license No. V4/RC-29/2023 on 21.03.2023, which was subsequently renewed for the year 2024. The petitioner thereafter submitted an application seeking renewal for the year 2025.

3. According to the petitioner, the renewal application was kept pending by the respondent. Subsequently, the respondent issued a notice dated 10.06.2026, referring to the existence of a hospital, educational institutions, a bus stop and a temple in the vicinity of the club and calling upon the petitioner to submit its explanation. The petitioner submitted its explanation on 23.06.2026, denying the allegations and contending that it had not violated any of the conditions of the license.

4. The grievance of the petitioner is that, notwithstanding the explanation submitted, the respondent passed the impugned proceedings dated 04.10.2026 cancelling the license without properly considering its explanation and without affording an opportunity of personal hearing. It is further contended that the petitioner had been granted the license after consideration of the relevant circumstances and that the respondent cannot subsequently refuse renewal on grounds that were already in existence when the license was originally granted.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgement reported in 2024 5 LW 392, Mariappan vs. District Collector, Theni District and Others, contending that an order passed without considering the explanation submitted to a show cause notice and without complying with the requirements of procedural fairness is liable to be set aside. Reliance was also placed upon D.P.Anand vs. State of Tamil

Nadu and Another, reported in 1998 CRL. L.J 724, wherein the authority was directed to reconsider the petitioner's application in the light of the observations made by the Court.

6. The respondent filed a counter affidavit resisting the Writ Petition. The respondent stated that, upon receipt of the petitioner's application for renewal, the matter was referred to the jurisdictional police station for field verification. The report revealed that Vikram Hospital and a bus stop were situated within approximately 100 metres of the club. It was further reported that Arulmigu Pandi Muni temple, which attracts a considerable number of devotees and members of the public, was situated nearby. The respondent further contended that the field verification report disclosed that persons who were not members of the club were being permitted to enter the premises, purchase liquor and consume the same therein. According to the respondent, condition No.2 of the license specifically prohibited the admission of non members, while condition No.5 required the club to ensure that public peace and safety were not disturbed and that its functioning did not cause nuisance to the public.

7. The counter affidavit also referred to an incident involving 8 persons alleged to be non members and one Bharatraj, a Salesman working at the club, in connection with which a complaint was lodged and a criminal case was registered in Crime No.173 of 2026. The respondent further stated that, representations had been received from members of the public seeking closure of the club.

8. According to the respondent, the impugned decision was not based merely on the existence of a hospital, educational institutions, a bus stop or a temple in the vicinity. The cumulative effect of the field verification report, the alleged violation of the licensing conditions, the incident reported at the premises, the representations received from the public and the movement of the general public in the locality were taken into consideration in the interests of public safety, public convenience and the maintenance of public order.

9. The respondent further submitted that the petitioner had been issued a show-cause notice dated 10.06.2026 and that its explanation dated 23.06.2026 was received and considered along with the field verification report and the other materials available on record. It was contended that the decision was taken in the bona fide exercise of statutory powers and that the petitioner has no automatic or unconditional right to renewal of the police license.

10. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent and perused the materials placed on record.

11. The issue that arises for consideration is whether the impugned proceedings warrant interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on the grounds raised by the petitioner.

12. At the outset, it must be observed that grant of a license to operate a club is subject to compliance with the applicable statutory provisions and the conditions imposed by the competent licensing authority. The fact that a license was granted in an earlier year does not confer an indefeasible right upon the licensee to insist upon its renewal irrespective of subsequent circumstances, alleged violations of the licensing conditions or considerations relating to public safety.

13. In the present case, the respondent has specifically referred to the conditions imposed in the police license. Condition No.2 prohibits the admission of non members into the club, while condition No.5 requires the petitioner to ensure that the functioning of the club does not disturb public peace and safety or cause nuisance to the public.

14. The respondent has further relied upon the field verification report, which allegedly disclosed that non-members were being permitted to enter the premises and consume liquor. The respondent has also referred to an incident that resulted in the registration of Crime No.173 of 2026 and representations received from members of the public seeking closure of the club.

15. These circumstances are relevant to the assessment of whether the petitioner continues to comply with the licensing conditions and whether the operation of the club is consistent with public safety and convenience. The licensing authority is not required to remain passive until a serious breach of public peace occurs. It is entitled to take preventive and regulatory measures on the basis of relevant material, provided that such measures are taken within scope of its statutory powers. At the same time, the registration of a criminal case cannot, by itself, be treated as proof of the guilt of the persons concerned.

16. In the present case, however, the respondent has not relied exclusively upon the registration of the criminal case. The counter affidavit refers to the field verification report, the alleged violation of specific license conditions, the nature of the locality and the representations from the members of the public. These matters have been relied upon cumulatively in support of the licensing decision.

17. The petitioner has contended that the hospital, bus stop and temple were already in existence when the license was originally granted. However, the mere fact that the license was granted in 2023 does not preclude the respondent from subsequently examining whether club's continued operation complies with the licensing conditions and whether the circumstances prevailing at the relevant time warrant regulatory action. The authority is entitled to assess the matter on the basis of the circumstances existing when the application for renewal is considered.

18. Further, the petitioner's contention that it has obtained an FL2 license from the Prohibition and Excise Department does not, by itself, establish an entitlement to renewal of the separate police license. The two licenses operate within their respective statutory frameworks. Compliance with the conditions of one license does not dispense with the obligation to comply with the conditions imposed under the other.

19. The contention that the impugned proceedings were passed without considering the petitioner's explanation dated 23.06.2026 also requires consideration. The respondent has specifically stated in the counter affidavit that the explanation was received and considered along with the field verification report and other relevant materials. The petitioner has not demonstrated, on the materials placed before this Court, that the respondent acted without jurisdiction or relied upon wholly irrelevant considerations. The fact that the impugned order may not reproduce every submission made in the petitioner's explanation does not, by itself, establish non-application of mind. What is material is whether the authority considered the relevant circumstances and exercised its statutory power for a legitimate purpose.

20. The principles of natural justice require a fair opportunity to respond to the allegations forming the basis of an adverse decision. In the present case, the respondent issued a show-cause notice dated 10.06.2026, and the petitioner submitted its explanation dated 23.06.2026. The respondent asserts that the explanation was considered before the impugned decision was taken. The petitioner has not established that the applicable statutory provision invariably require a separate personal hearing in addition to the opportunity to submit a written explanation. The necessity and scope of personal hearing must be determined with reference to the governing statute and the circumstances of the particular case. In the absence of a demonstrated statutory violation or material prejudice resulting from the procedure adopted, the mere absence of a personal hearing would not, by itself, justify interference in every case.

21. The judgements relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner establish the proposition that an authority must consider the explanation submitted by an affected party and act fairly, while taking an adverse decision. There can be no dispute with the general principle that an administrative authority must consider the representation submitted by an affected party and exercise its powers in accordance with law. However, the applicability of a judicial precedent depends upon the statutory framework and the factual circumstances of the case in which it is invoked.

22. In the present case, the respondent had furnished a specific explanation for the decision taken, referring to the alleged breach of license conditions, the field verification report, the incident reported at the club and the prevailing circumstances in the locality. The petitioner has not established that these considerations were legally irrelevant or that the respondent acted for an extraneous purpose. The aforesaid decision, therefore, do not warrant interference with the impugned proceedings merely because the petitioner disputes the conclusions reached by the licensing authority.

23. It is also relevant to note that the respondent is the authority responsible for maintaining public order and regulating activities falling within the scope of the applicable police licensing provisions. In exercising such powers, the authorities entitled to take into account the nature of the establishment, the conditions imposed upon it, the surrounding locality and credible information concerning possible breaches of those conditions. In the absence of sufficient material demonstrating a jurisdictional error, manifest arbitrariness or a material violation of the prescribed procedure, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the impugned proceedings.

24. As regards the petitioner's request for a consequential direction to renew the license, such a direction cannot be issued as a matter of course. Renewal is subject to the applicable statutory requirements and the conditions governing the license. The petitioner cannot claim an automatic right to renewal merely because the license has been granted and renewed in previous years.

25. Having regard to the circumstances stated in the counter affidavit, including the alleged violation of the conditions prohibiting the entry of non-members and requiring the maintenance of public peace and safety, this court is not persuaded to hold that the respondent's decision falls outside the scope of its lawful regulatory power.

26. For the foregoing reasons, this Court finds that the petitioner has not made out sufficient grounds for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Writ Petition is therefore liable to be dismissed.

27. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition, if any, is closed. 04-11-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No mar/skn

To

1. The Commissioner of Police, Madurai City, Madurai.

2. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI J. mar/skn WP Crl.(MD) No. 5869 of 2026 AND WMP CRL.(MD) No. 1294 of 2026 04-11-2026