The High Court of Madras dismissed a writ petition challenging the cancellation of an explosive licence. The Court held that the licensing authority properly directed an enquiry by a Revenue Divisional Officer under the Explosives Act and found no illegality or violation of natural justice principles.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 04.09.2019
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN
Writ Petition No.33819 of 2004
C. Sundaram
... Petitioner
-Versus-
1. Special Commissioner and
Commissioner of Revenue Administration,
Chepauk,
Chennai – 5
2. District Magistrate-cum- District Revenue Officer,
Perambalur,
Perambalur District.
... Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the
records pertaining to the order passed by the first respondent
in his proceedings D.Dis.V(2)/87239/2001M (AA. 128/01) dated
27.08.2002 confirming the order passed by the 2 nd respondent in
his proceedings in Na.Ka.D2/10647/2001 dated 11.10.2001 and
quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.G. Anantha Rangan
For Respondents : Mr. I.Sathish,
Addl. Govt. Pleader
ORDER
This writ petition challenges the cancellation of explosive licence granted to the petitioner.
Revenue Divisional Officer, Perambalur, under Section 9(1) of the Explosives Act (hereinafter called as "Act” ) and based on the report submitted by the Enquiry Officer, the licensing authority, namely, the second respondent, cancelled the licence of the petitioner. Against which, the petitioner filed an appeal before the first respondent. The first respondent, vide order dated 27.08.2002, rejected the Appeal filed by the petitioner and confirmed the order passed by the second respondent. Now, challenging the same, the present writ petition has been filed.
Magistrate and District Collector, under Section 9(1) of the Explosives Act, the District Magistrate and District Collector, Perambalur has ordered the Sub-Divisional Magistrate cum Revenue Divisional Officer, Perambalur to conduct enquiry and submit a report. Under Section 9(2) of the Explosives Act 1884, the SubDivisional Magistrate cum Revenue Divisional Officer, Perambalur is empowered with the powers of the Magistrate for holding an enquiry into an offence, following the procedure contemplated under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. .
8.. Considering all the materials, the licencing authority came to a conclusion that there is a violation of licence condition. Hence, he cancelled the licence and the appellate authority also confirmed his finding. I find no illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the respondents and I find no merit in the writ petition.
mrp
To
W.P. No.33819 of 2004
SPD(CO)
CB(04/09/2019)
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Revenue Divisional Officer was empowered to conduct an enquiry under Section 9(2) of the Explosives Act.
Whether principles of natural justice were violated in the cancellation of the explosive licence.
Whether the licensing authority and appellate authority acted within legislative intent in confirming the cancellation order.
4 provisions across 3 enactments
C. Sundaram
Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Revenue Administration
District Magistrate-cum-District Revenue Officer
V. BHARATHIDASAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
