Disposed

Kathiravan v. the Dist. Revenue Officer/

Madras HC19 Mar 2020WP(MD)/5693/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the Madras High Court directed the District Revenue Officer to examine the petitioner's case, grant a personal hearing, and decide on the renewal of his explosive license within 30 days, balancing previous confiscation grounds with the petitioner's livelihood needs.

What did the court decide?

Directing the respondent to examine facts and grant personal hearing, and to pass an order on license renewal by 15.04.2020.

Kathiravan Vs the Dist. Revenue Officer/ — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.5693 of 2020

¶2

Kathiravan

¶3

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 19.03.2020 CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN W.P.(MD)No.5693 of 2020

¶5

... Petitioner

¶6

vs.

¶7

The District Revenue Officer / Additional District Magistrate, Kanyakumari District, Nagercoil.

¶8

... Respondent

¶9

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to renew the petitioner explosive license bearing license no.3/EXP/KKI/AGM/2016 being carried in Survey no.204/1 of Neendakarai B.Village, Agastheeswaram taluk, Kanyakumari district for a period of 3 years from 01.04.2020 by considering his representation dated 27.02.2020

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.S.R.Anbarasu

¶11

for M/s.T.R.Janarthanan

¶12

For Respondent : Mr.A.Thiagarajan, Government Advocate

¶13

O R D E R

¶14

The petitioner had an explosive licence. He is a manufacturer of fire works not exceeding 15kgs at any one time and the explosive, which he manufactures is for the fire works / Gun powder. For this he has to have a licence. He had a licence that was in effect till 31.03.2020. He had occasion to file a WP.(MD). No.13294 of 2019, questioning the order of the respondent herein, who was the first respondent in the said writ petition, who had confiscated the said licence. The petitioner had an advantage of an interim order of stay and that order was also subsequently made absolute. Now the petitioner seeks renewal of the explosive licence. He had given a representation to the respondent on 27.02.2020. He had also applied for renewal of explosives licence on 29.01.2020 and had also paid necessary renewal charges on 28.01.2020.

¶15

The respondent namely the District Revenue Officer/ Additional District Magistrate, Kanyakumari District, may examine the entire facts of the case, including the necessity for confiscation of the licence on the previous occasion, the grounds on which the stay was granted by the High Court and balance the same with the necessity of the petitioner and his livelihood in

¶16

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

¶17

1/2

¶18

W.P.(MD)No.5693 of 2020

¶19

manufacturing explosives and whether he had contravened any of the rules which surrounded grant of explosive licence, invite the petitioner and grant him personal hearing and thereafter pass an order. The entire exercise must be completed on or before 15.04.2020.

¶20

With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. No Costs.

¶21

Assistant Registrar

¶22

// True Copy //

¶23

/ /2020 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS )

¶24

Pkn

¶25

¶26

The District Revenue Officer / Additional District Magistrate, Kanyakumari District, Nagercoil.

¶27

+1 CC to M/s.S.R.ANBARASU, Advocate ( SR-12647[F] dated 20/03/2020 ) +1 CC to SPL.GP ( SR-12686[F] dated 20/03/2020 )

¶28

W.P.(MD)No.5693 of 2020 19.03.2020

¶29

MK (12.05.2020) 2P 4C

¶30

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

¶31

2/2

Kathiravan v. the Dist. Revenue Officer/

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kathiravan v. the Dist. Revenue Officer/

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

M/S.Ashok Timber Trading Company Vs the Commissioner of Customs

Esakkiammal Vs the District Collector

Jeyaparvathi Vs the Govt of Tamil Nadu

K.Chandrasekaran Vs the Licensing Authority

Habeeb Educational and Social Services Ltd., Vs the Sub Collector

A. Saravanan Vs the Regional Passport Officer