Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

V.BALAKRISHNAN versus STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


V.BALAKRISHNAN v. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS - WP(C) No. 27851 of 2003(N) [2007] RD-KL 5914 (21 March 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 27851 of 2003(N)

1. V.BALAKRISHNAN,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS
... Respondent

2. THE COMMISSIONER OF LAND REVENUE

3. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE

4. MR.P.P.RAMACHANDRAN, ARIYAKKAL HOUSE,

For Petitioner :SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ

For Respondent :SMT.K.SEENA

The Hon'ble MR. Justice KURIAN JOSEPH

Dated :21/03/2007

O R D E R

KURIAN JOSEPH, J.

W.P.(C) No.27851 of 2003 Dated 21st March, 2007.

J U D G M E N T

The issue pertains to the grant of licence to possess a gun, in favour of the 4th respondent. It is seen that the issue was being pursued before the licensing authority as well as appellate authority. The petitioner was also afforded an opportunity for hearing on all occasions except when the impugned Ext.P5 order was passed granting licence to the 4th respondent. Though the petitioner attempted an appeal, the same was turned down as per Ext.P8 on the ground that no appeal would lie since the appeal is against the grant of licence. Though several contentions are taken on that issue, in the nature of the view I propose to take in this case, it is not necessary to advert to the same. The fact remains that while passing Ext.P5 order, the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity for hearing. At the same time, it is stated that Ext.P5 order happened to be passed since on earlier occasions, the 4th respondent was not afforded an effective opportunity for hearing. In the above circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of as follows :- WP NO.27851/03 2 Ext.P5 and the consequential Ext.P8 are quashed. There will be a direction to the third respondent to consider the matter afresh with notice to the petitioner and the 4th respondent, and pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law, adverting to the contentions taken by the parties, within a period of one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the judgment.

KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE.

tgs

KURIAN JOSEPH, J

O.P.No. of 2002

J U D G M E N T

Dated 21st March, 2007.


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.