Disposed

V.Muruganandam v. The Additional Chief secretary/

Madras HC9 Sept 2021WP/19075/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court ordered the Additional Chief Secretary to dispose of the petitioner's pending appeal against the rejection of his gun licence renewal application within eight weeks, ensuring the petitioner was afforded a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the first respondent to dispose of the petitioner's appeal within eight weeks with a reasonable opportunity of hearing on merits.

V.Muruganandam Vs The Additional Chief secretary/ — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 09.09.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN

¶5

W.P. No. 19075 of 2021

¶6

V. Muruganandam ...Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

The Additional Chief Secretary/ Special District Collector and Commissioner of Revenue Administration Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005

¶9

Additional District Magistrate Cum The District Revenue Officer Nagapattinam - 611003 ...Respondents

¶10

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to dispose of the petitioner's appeal dated 11.05.2021 within a time frame stipulated by this Hon'ble Court.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.L.G.Sahadevan

¶12

For Respondents : Mr.G.Krishnaraja Government Counsel

¶13

O R D E R

¶14

The present writ petition has been filed seeking to direct the first respondent to dispose of the petitioner's appeal within a time frame to be stipulated by this Court.

¶15

According to the petitioner, he owns 35 acres of agricultural lands cultivating paddy, raising casuarina trees, cashew, mangoes and other agricultural activities. Initially, his father possessed gun license and after his demise, the same was transferred in the name of the petitioner's brother. After the death of his brother, the petitioner applied for gun licence and by order dated 21.07.2014, the second respondent granted licence for a SBBL gun for a period of 3 years, which was renewed for further period of three years. Now, the petitioner made an application on 23.06.2020 for renewal of gun licence, which was rejected by order dated 17.04.2021 by the second

¶16

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

¶17

respondent, relying on Section 17 (3)(a) of Arms Act, 1959, stating that the explanation stated by the petitioner was not satisfactory. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner filed an appeal to the first respondent on 11.05.2021, which is pending without any consideration. Therefore, this writ petition.

¶18

After hearing both sides and upon perusal of the documents enclosed in the typed set of papers, this court, without going into the merits of the case, directs the first respondent to consider the petitioner's appeal dated 11.05.2021 and pass appropriate orders, on merits and in accordance with law, after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶19

With the aforesaid direction, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs.

¶20

Sd/-

¶21

Assistant Registrar(CS VII)

¶22

//True Copy//

¶23

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶24

dhk

¶25

¶26

The Additional Chief Secretary/ Special District Collector and Commissioner of Revenue Administration Chepauk,

¶27

Chennai - 600 005

¶28

The Additional District Magistrate Cum The District Revenue Officer

¶29

Nagapattinam – 611003

¶30

+2ccs to Mr.L.G.Sahadevan. Advocate, Sr.No.,45647

¶31

+1 cc to the Government Pleader,Advocate Sr.No.46149

¶32

W.P. No. 19075 of 2021

¶33

PA[co]

¶34

NSK 25/10/2021

¶35

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

V.Muruganandam v. The Additional Chief secretary/

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Muruganandam v. The Additional Chief secretary/

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

Tmt. Jaya Vs The Secretary

G.Ragavapillai@Ragavan, Vs Inspector General of

B.Muthuvel Vs The Managing Director

G.Ramkumar Vs The Tahsildar

V.Vasantha Vs The District Collector

M.Samiyappan Vs The District collector