Madras High Court
P.V.Elangan vs The Additional Chief Secretary Cum on 30 March, 2015
Author: B.Rajendran
Bench: B.Rajendran
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 30.03.2015 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.RAJENDRAN W.P.(MD).No.12960 of 2014 and M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2014 P.V.Elangan : Petitioner Vs. 1.The Additional Chief Secretary cum Commissioner of Revenue Administration, Disaster Management and Mitigation Department, Ezhilagam, Chennai - 5. 2.The District Revenue Officer, Madurai, Madurai District. : Respondents PRAYER Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records on the files of the first respondent pertaining to its order in RA 5(1)/30100/2010 A.A.No.46/2010, dated 26.11.2013 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to renew the petitioner Arm License No.12/1/MNT-II within a time frame that may be stipulated by this Honourable Court and pass such further or other orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice. !For Petitioner : Mr.R.Jegadeeswaran ^For Respondents : Mr.S.Chandrasekar, Government Advocate *** :ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order dated 26.11.2013 passed by first respondent and consequential direction to the respondents to renew the petitioner's Arm License No.12/1/MNT-II within the stipulated time.
2.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is aged 63 years old and was having gun licence. His application for renewal of licence was rejected by the second respondent and as against which, he has preferred an appeal. The appellate authority has also passed an order rejecting the same without taking into consideration the objections especially the criminal case against the petitioner which has already been closed. Further, the age cannot be a bar for granting the gun licence. Therefore, the rejection by the authorities concerned is without any basis. Aggrieved against the rejection orders, the petitioner has come forward with this writ petition.
3.The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents would submit that the authorities have taken into consideration not only the age of the petitioner but also the involvement in criminal case and rejected the application for renewal of the licence.
4.On a careful reading of the order, it is very clear that the appellate authority has not taken into consideration the vital factor that the criminal case has already been closed and the age cannot be a bar but the antecedents of the petitioner's involvement in criminal cases would definitely be considered. Therefore, the authorities should have given an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and then passed orders but the petitioner was not given any opportunity. Hence, the matter order dated 26.11.2013 passed by the first respondent is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the first respondent. The first respondent shall give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and then pass orders on merits and in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible.
5.The Writ Petition is disposed of with the above direction. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
30.03.2015 Index :Yes/No Internet :Yes/No srm To
1.The Additional Chief Secretary cum Commissioner of Revenue Administration, Disaster Management and Mitigation Department, Ezhilagam, Chennai - 5.
2.The District Revenue Officer, Madurai, Madurai District.
B.RAJENDRAN, J srm W.P.(MD).No.12960 of 2014 30.03.2015