Dismissed

L. Krishnamoorthy v. Special Tahsildar

Madras HC12 Jun 2019WP/7834/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court at Madras in W.P.No.7834 of 2009 dismissed the petition challenging the non-completion of an enquiry by the Special Tahsildar. The court held the first respondent was not the competent authority and granted liberty to approach the competent authority.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to file a fresh representation to the competent authority enclosing this order within four weeks.

L. Krishnamoorthy Vs Special Tahsildar — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED 12.06.2019

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KALYANASUNDARAM

¶5

W.P.No.7834 of 2009

¶6

L.Krishnamoorthy (Deceased)

¶7

K.Kousalya

¶8

K.Mahesh
(P2 & P3 substituted as LR's in
the place of the deceased petitioner
as per order of this Court dated 29.04.2011 made
in M.P.No.1/2011 in W.P.No.7834/2009) .. Petitioners
Vs
1. Special Tahsildar,
(Enforcement) (Pawn Brokers Act)
Officer of the District Collector,
Chennai - 600 001.
2. The Secretary to Government,
Co-operation, Food and Consumer Protection,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Fort St. George,
Chennai - 600 009.
3. Champalal Sowcar
4. G.Rathanchand Bora .. Respondents

¶9

Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent, Special Tahsildar (Enforcement Chennai - 1 to complete the enquiry in proceeding No.P1/53419/2008 dated 10.11.2008, within a time frame to a logical conclusion, as per provisions of Tamil Nadu Pawn Brokers Act, 1943.

¶10

For Petitioners : Mr.S.Veerabagu

¶11

For Respondents : Mrs.P.Rajalakshmi,

¶12

Additional Government Pleader for R1 & R2

¶13

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

¶14

: Mr.M.Ravi Bharathi for R3 : No Appearance for R4

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

The petitioners have come forward with this Writ Petition for issuance of Writ of Mandamus to direct the first respondent to complete the enquiry in proceeding No.P1/53419/2008 dated 10.11.2008, within a time frame.

¶17

Heard, Mr.S.Veerabagu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mrs.P.Rajalakshmi, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 and Mr.M.Ravi Bharathi, learned counsel appearing for the third respondent. Though notice has been served on the fourth respondent and his name printed in the cause list, none-appeared on behalf of the fourth respondent.

¶18

This writ petition was filed by one L.Krishnamoorthy but during the pendency of this Writ Petition, he died on 18.06.2010 and his legal heirs were brought on record.

¶19

According to the petitioner(deceased), his son is engaged in the business of selling old Auto-Rickshaws and his daughter is working in Children's Hospital as a Technical Assistant. He had pledged jewels with the third respondent in two pawn tickets Nos.5097 and 5098 dated 20.09.2007. When he approached the third respondent to redeem the jewels, the third respondent demanded 36% interest per annum and his request to charge 15% interest per annum, was not accepted. Hence, he sent a complaint on 24.10.2008, for which the first respondent directed the petitioner(deceased) and the third respondent to appear for enquiry along with original pawn tickets.

¶20

The petitioner further stated that in the mean while, the third respondent had called him over phone and promised to settle the issue. But, later he was informed that the jewels were auctioned on 20th February 2009. Hence, it is alleged by the petitioner that the first respondent has not discharged his statutory obligation.

¶21

The first respondent has filed a detailed counter stating that in pursuance of the letter of the Personal Assistant (General to the Collector) dated 10.11.2008, third respondent was directed to appear before the first respondent along with the license within a period of three days. Accordingly, he appeared before the first respondent and gave a statement that the petitioner neither failed to pay the interest nor the principal amount to redeem the jewels. It is further stated that

¶22

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

¶23

the petitioner has not produced any records to show that the jewels were pledged vide two pawn tickets dated 20.09.2007 and also not produced the renewed pawn tickets. It is further stated that the first respondent is not empowered to conduct enquiry under the Tamil Nadu Pawn Brokers Act, 1943.

¶24

In the instant case, pledging of jewels of the original petitioner with the third respondent is not in dispute. According to the petitioner, the third respondent demanded exorbitant interest at the rate of 36%. In the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent, it is stated that the petitioner did not co-operate for the enquiry before the first respondent and also failed to appear before the first respondent along with the original pawn tickets.

¶25

The petitioner(deceased) himself admits that the jewels were auctioned on 20.02.2009 and his representation was to cancel the license issued infavour of the third respondent.

¶26

In view of the stand taken by the respondent that the first respondent is not the competent authority to consider the grievances of the petitioner, this Writ petition is dismissed granting liberty to the petitioners to give a fresh representation to the competent authority by enclosing the copy of this order within a period of four weeks. If any representation is given, the same would be considered by the concerned authority, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible.

¶27

With the above observations and directions, this Writ Petition is dismissed.

¶28

s/d-

¶29

Assistant Registrar(CS IX)

¶30

True Copy

¶31

Sub-Assistant Registrar dh To

¶32

The Special Tahsildar, (Enforcement) (Pawn Brokers Act) Officer of the District Collector, Chennai - 600 001.

¶33

The Secretary to Government, Co-operation, Food and Consumer Protection, Government of Tamil Nadu, Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009.

¶34

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

¶35

+1 CC to Mr.M.Ravi bharathi, Advocate sr 48182.

¶36

+1 CC to Govt.Pleader sr 48101.

¶37

+1 CC to Mr.S.Veerabagu, Advocate sr 47590.

¶38

W.P.No.7834 of 2009

¶39

BS(CO)
SP(11/07/2019)

¶40

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

L. Krishnamoorthy v. Special Tahsildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

L. Krishnamoorthy v. Special Tahsildar

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

A.Leema Rose, Vs the State Rep. by the Chief

Ms. Jamunadevi Rep. by Their Vs Bharat Petroleum Corporation

G. Babu Vs the Collector

Ashokan R Vs Parthasarathy I.A.S

P.Sankaralingam Vs His Excellency

S.Gunasekaran Vs the Chairman and Managing