Disposed

Murugesan v. the Managing Director

Madras HC19 Apr 2017WA(MD)/1012/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench set aside the order permanently blacklisting the appellant as a Hulling Agent due to denial of a personal hearing. The authority must grant the appellant an opportunity of hearing before passing orders on the merits. The cancellation of authorization as a Hulling Agent remains confirmed.

What did the court decide?

Set aside the order of blacklisting the appellant; direct the respondent to grant a personal hearing and pass orders on merits within four weeks of receiving the appellant's explanation.

Murugesan Vs the Managing Director — Consumer Protection | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 19.04.2017

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN

¶6

W.A.[MD].No.1012 of 2014

¶7

Murugesan : Appellant

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1.The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd., 12, Thambusamy Road, Kilpauk, Chennai – 10.

¶10

2.The Senior Regional Manager, Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation, Thoothukudi.

¶11

3.The District Collector, Thoothukudi District, Thoothukudi.

¶12

4.The Inspector of Police, Civil Supplies Crime Investigation Department, Thoothukudi.

¶13

: Respondents

¶14

PRAYER: Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 27.06.2014 in W.P.(MD).No.14173of 2013, on the file of this Court.

¶15

Prayer in WP(MD). 14173/ 2013 : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to Writ of Certiorarified Mandmaus by calling fro the entire records pertaining to the impugned orders passed by the 2nd respondent vide his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.B2/1844/12 dated 6.6.2012 and the same was confirmed by the 1st respondent by his proceedings Na.Ka.No.MH5/60868/2012 dated 12.7.2013 and quash the same as illegal, consequently direct the 2nd respondent to allot paddy pursuant to the order of authorization to act as a Hulling Agent https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ passed through his proceedings in Na.Ka.NO.B2/01844/2012 dated 24.2.2012.

¶16

¶17

For Appellants For Respondent

¶18

: Mr.T.Lenin Kumar

¶19

: Mr.D.Mayarajan for RR1 and 2 Mr.S.Chandrasekar, G.A. For RR3 and 4

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

¶22

[Judgment of the Court was delivered by T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.]

¶23

Heard Mr.T.Lenin Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr.D.Mayarajan, learned standing counsel appearing for RR1 and 2 and Mr.S.Chandrasekar, learned Government Adovcate appearing for RR3 and 4.

¶24

2.This appeal is directed against the order dated 26.02.2014 made in W.P.(MD) No.4181 of 2012.

¶25

3.In this appeal, the writ petitioner has challenged the order passed in W.P(MD) No.14173 of 2013 dated 27.06.2014. The said writ petition was filed challenging the order passed by the second respondent dated 06.06.2012 and confirmed by the first respondent by order dated 12.07.2013 and quash the same and direct the second respondent to allot paddy, pursuant to the order of authorisation to act as a Hulling Agent passed through his proceedings dated 24.02.2012.

¶26

4.The learned Single Judge, after careful consideration of the entire factual position, came to the conclusion that there was no error in the cancellation of the authorisation granted to the petitioner as Hulling Agent on account of the illegality committed by him. We find no error in the said findings recorded by the learned Single Judge.

¶27

5.The learned counsel for the appellant pointed out the other relief sought for by the petitioner was challenging the Black Listing of the petitioner permanently from being an Hulling Agent of the respondent Corporation. Though the appellant had submitted his explanation to the show cause notice, no personal hearing was granted. In this regard, it is relevant to mention that in terms of Rule 21 of Tamil Nadu Essential Trade Articles (Regulation) Order 1984, the Commissioner or Collector or the authorized Officer or the licensing authority may cancel, suspend, withdraw authorisation issued under sub-clause(1) of Clause 9 for contravention of the terms and conditions specified therein and no order shall be made under the said clause unless, the dealer has been given an opportunity of being heard against the proposed action.

¶28

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶29

6.A communication has been sent by the second respondent to the standing counsel dated 01.09.2014, wherein, it has been

¶30

¶31

admitted that no opportunity of personal hearing was granted. Thus, it is clear that before the petitioner was blacklisted as Hulling Agent of the respondent Corporation, no opportunity of personal hearing was granted. Therefore, to that extent, we are inclined to grant relief to the appellant. Accordingly, while confirming the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge, with regard to the cancellation of the authorisation, we set aside the order of block listing the petitioner as a Contractor and direct the petitioner to submit an explanation, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on receipt of the same, the competent authority of the respondent Corporation shall afford an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner/appellant and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks thereafter. No costs.

¶32

Sd/-

¶33

Assistant Registrar /True Copy/

¶34

Sub-Assistant Registrar

¶35

¶36

1.The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd., 12, Thambusamy Road, Kilpauk,

¶37

Chennai – 10.

¶38

2.The Senior Regional Manager, Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation, Thoothukudi.

¶39

3.The District Collector, Thoothukudi District, Thoothukudi.

¶40

4.The Inspector of Police, Civil Supplies Crime Investigation Department, Thoothukudi. +1 CC TO MR.D.MAYARAJAN,ADVOCATE,SR NO.52968 +1 CC TO MR.T.LENIN KUMAR,ADVOCATE,SR NO.52871 +1 CC TO SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER SR NO.53096

¶41

Arul

¶42

MAS/SKN-RSK/SAR2:25.04.2017:3P-8C

¶43

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶44

JUDGMENT MADE IN W.A.[MD].No.1012 of 2014 19.04.2017

Murugesan v. the Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Murugesan v. the Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Commissioenr of Land Vs P.Karmegam

S.Karthick, M-27 Vs the Commissioner of Police

Smt. G. Gandhimathi Vs State Bank of India

Sumathi Vs M/S.National Insurance Com.

The Director of Elementary Vs David Primary School

The Government of Tamil Nadu, Vs R.Saravanakumar