Disposed

Surya Vetrikondan v. The State, Rep by The Commr.

Madras HC19 Jan 2017WP/1390/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 226, the Madras High Court directed the Commissioner of Police to consider the petitioner's reply to a pending show cause notice regarding an arms licence application and pass orders within two months without adjudicating on the merits.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 2nd respondent to consider the petitioner's reply dated 01.09.2016 to the show cause notice on merits and pass appropriate orders within two months.

Surya Vetrikondan Vs The State, Rep by The Commr. — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 19.01.2017

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.RAJENDRAN

¶5

WRIT PETITION No.1390 of 2017

¶6

Surya Vetrikondan ... Petitioner

¶7

vs.

¶8

The State represented by the Commissioner of Police, Chennai City Office of the City Police Commissioner, No.132, Commissioner Office Building, EVK Sampath Road, Vepery, Periamet, Chennai 600 007. ... Respondent

¶9

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders on the petitioner's reply dated 01.09.2016 to the show cause notice dated 16.08.2016.

¶10

For Petitioner : Ms.R.Revathy, for M/s.Black N Red Law Associates For Respondent : Mr.S.Rajeswaran, Special Government Pleader

¶11

The petitioner has come up with this Writ Petition seeking a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders on his reply dated 01.09.2016 to the show cause notice dated 16.08.2016.

¶12

According to the petitioner, he is an Advocate by profession and he is handling very sensitive criminal cases. He is also a furious speaker in a Political party. Hence, with an apprehension to safeguard himself and his property, the petitioner applied to the respondent for grant of an Arms Licence vide application dated 09.11.2015 along with requisite documents. Since the application was pending for more than seven months, the petitioner filed W.P.No.19022 of 2016 seeking a direction for speedy disposal of the said application and this

¶13

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

¶14

Court, directed the respondent to pass orders on the petitioner's application within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

¶15

Pursuant thereto, the petitioner received a show cause notice dated 16.08.2016 asking to show cause as to why his request for grant of fresh arms licence should not be rejected, as he had not substantiated his claim. To the said show cause notice, the petitioner sent a reply dated 01.09.2016 to the respondent. Since his reply has not been considered so far, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition.

¶16

Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the material documents available on record.

¶17

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, without going into the merits of the case, this Court directs the respondent to consider the petitioner's reply dated 01.09.2016 to the show cause notice, on merits and in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶18

This Writ Petition is disposed of with the above direction. No costs. Consequently, connected W.M.P.No.1306 of 2017 is closed. s/dAssistant Registrar(CS III) //True Copy// Sub-Assistant Registrar To: The Commissioner of Police, Chennai City Office of the City Police Commissioner, No.132, Commissioner Office Building, EVK Sampath Road, Vepery, Periamet, Chennai 600 007. +1 CC to M/s. Black and Red Law Associates sr 3729 +1 C to The Govt. Pleader sr 4083

¶19

Order in W.P.No.1390 of 2017

¶20

GMI(CO) sp/9/2

¶21

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

Surya Vetrikondan v. The State, Rep by The Commr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surya Vetrikondan v. The State, Rep by The Commr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

H.Harimurugesan Vs The Commissioner

M/s.Sree Saraswathi Mills Ltd. Vs The Tahsildar

R.Sundaramoorthy Vs The District Collector

T.Ramanathan, Vs The Secretary

Chennai Yetrumathi Valaga Vs Commissioner of Labour

C.Thamizh Maran, Vs The Inspector General of