Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

P. ARUNAGIRI versus THE JOINT CHIEF CONTROLLER OF EXPLOSIVES

High Court of Madras

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


P. Arunagiri v. The Joint Chief Controller of Explosives - W.P.No.24311 of 2002 [2002] RD-TN 447 (9 July 2002)



IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS



DATED: 09/07/2002

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE V. KANAGARAJ

W.P.No.24311 of 2002

and

W.P.M.P.Nos.33418 & 33419 of 2002

P. Arunagiri .... Petitioner Vs.

1. The Joint Chief Controller of Explosives,

South Circle, 140, Marshals Road,

Chennai 600 008.

2. The Principal Commissioner and

Commissioner of Revenue Administration,

Chepauk, Chennai 600 005.

3. The Joint Commissioner of Land Revenue,

Chepauk, Chennai 600 005. .... Respondents Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of writ of Certiorarified Mandamus as stated therein. For Petitioner : Mr. A.U. Ilango

For Respondents : Mr. S. Venkatesh, AGP

:O R D E R



Writ petition praying for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of he third respondent dated 1.4.2002 made in R.C.R.A.5(2)/7139/2002 and quash the same and to direct the respondents to renew the licence of the petitioner No.Ma.4921/E in Form 21, for a further period of two years.

2. Learned AGP (Writs) takes notice on behalf of the respondents.

3. On a perusal of the pleadings, having regard to the materials placed on record and upon hearing the learned counsel for both, what comes to be known is that the petitioner had been originally licensed in Form 21 under Explosives Rule 1983 and for certain criminal cases registered under different crime numbers of different Police Stations at Tirunelveli and Chennai, on ground of public safety and security, the said licence of the petitioner is suspended and an order had been passed on 09.05.2000 testifying the validity, of which the petitioner preferred an appeal before the appellate authority designated under law and the appellate authority absolutely bereft of any consideration or discussion or appreciation of any material, has passed a one sentence order, thereby directing the writ petitioner to approach the District Revenue Officer, Tirunelveli after the criminal cases pending against him in different Courts are disposed of.

4. This Court has no reason at this stage to go into the conclusions arrived at by the appellate authority, which does not also mean that this Court is either accepting the conclusions or rejecting the same. However, this Court concern is the manner in which the said conclusion has been arrived at by the appellate authority, since the cardinal rule in disposing of such appeals the reasons should prevail and the petitioner has got a right to know as to for what reasons such a conclusion has been arrived at by the respondent/appellate authority, the Joint Commissioner of Land Revenue and therefore, testifying the validity of the order passed by the appellate authority dated 01.04 .2002, the petitioner has come forward to file the above writ petition on certain grounds as it has been brought forth in the grounds of the writ petition.

5. Time and again, this Court has insisted on such authorities to pass a speaking order in full consideration of the facts and circumstances encircling the whole case and with an opportunity for the petitioner to be heard, both of which have not been observed by the appellate authority as it comes to be seen from the order and therefore, it is only proper in the above circumstances to set aside the order impugned passed by the appellate authority and remand the above matter for his fresh disposal in the manner that it has to be dealt with and to pass orders. In result,

i) the above writ petition succeeds and the same is allowed. ii) the order dated 01.04.2002 passed by the appellate authority, Joint Commissioner of Land Revenue in his R.C.R.A.5(2)/7139/2002 is hereby quashed.

iii) The appellate authority is further directed to issue notice to the petitioner and hear fully entertaining even additional grounds raised or additional materials placed on record. iv) The subject is remitted to the appellate authority/Joint Commissioner of Land Revenue, Chepauk, Chennai 600 005 for reconsideration and to pass orders in the manner aforementioned. v) However in the circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to costs.

vi) Consequently, W.P.M.P.Nos.33418 and 33419 of 2002 are closed.

09.07.2002 Index:Yes

sl

To

1. The Joint Chief Controller of Explosives,

South Circle, 140, Marshals Road,

Chennai 600 008.

2. The Principal Commissioner and

Commissioner of Revenue Administration,

Chepauk, Chennai 600 005.

3. The Joint Commissioner of Land Revenue,

Chepauk, Chennai 600 005.

V. KANAGARAJ,J

W.P.No.24311 of 2002

& W.P.M.P.Nos.33418&33419/02


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.