Disposed

C.Lawrence v. the Additional Chief

Madras HC12 Dec 2022WP(MD)/20481/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the Madurai Bench directed the Additional Chief Secretary to consider the son's pending application for license renewal. The Court noted the petitioner's advanced age and lack of physical fitness to handle the weapon.

What did the court decide?

Directed the first respondent to consider the son's application for the license in respect of the petitioner's weapon and pass orders on merits.

C.Lawrence Vs the Additional Chief — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.20481 of 2013

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED :12.12.2022

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.20481 of 2013 and

¶7

M.P(MD) No.1 of 2013

¶8

C.Lawrence ... Petitioner

¶9

¶10

1.The Additional Chief Secretary cum Commissioner of Revenue Administration, Disaster Management and Mitigation Department, Ezhilagam, Chennai-5.

¶11

2.The District Revenue Officer, Kanyakumari District, At Nagercoil. ... Respondents

¶12

PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records on the file of the first respondent pertaining to its order in RA.5(2)/14822/2010 A.A.No.35/2010 dated 09.05.2013 and quash the same and consequently, direct the respondent to renew the petitioner's Arm

¶13

Page 1 of 5

¶14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶15

Court.

¶16

W.P.(MD)No.20481 of 2013

¶17

License No.7/9/Vila within a time frame that may be stipulated by this Court.

¶18

For Petitioner : Mr.S.C.Herold Singh For Respondents : Mr.M.Prakesh Additional Government Pleader

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

The challenge in this writ petition is to an order passed by the first respondent, rejecting the appeal preferred by the petitioner, wherein the second respondent had rejected his request for renewal of licence, on the grounds that there was no recommendation by the Superintendent of Police for renewal of license and that the licensee, namely the petitioner, was not in a position to handle the muscle loader weapon and that the weapon was also not in good condition.

¶21

2.The writ petition was filed in the year 2013 and during that time, the petitioner was aged about 75 years. When the writ petition was taken for hearing on 06.12.2022, this Court brought to the notice of the

¶22

_________ Page 2 of 5

¶23

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶24

W.P.(MD)No.20481 of 2013

¶25

learned counsel for the petitioner that by now, the petitioner would be aged about 84 years and he would not be physically fit to handle the weapon. The learned counsel would suggest that the license may be issued in favour of the petitioner's son. When this Court questioned the learned counsel for the petitioner whether the petitioner's son made such an application, the learned counsel submitted that an affidavit has been filed by the petitioner. Today, the learned counsel stated that the petitioner's son, namely L.Noble Lawrence, had made an application and the same is pending.

¶26

3.In the light of the aforesaid affidavit, the first respondent is

¶27

directed to consider the application of the petitioner's son, namely L.Noble Lawrence, for grant of license in respect of the weapon belonging to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, after affording opportunity to the petitioner within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶28

_________ Page 3 of 5

¶29

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶30

W.P.(MD)No.20481 of 2013

¶31

4.With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶32

No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶33

12.12.2022

¶34

Internet:Yes/No Index :Yes/No cp

¶35

To:-

¶36

1.The Additional Chief Secretary cum Commissioner of Revenue Administration, Disaster Management and Mitigation Department, Ezhilagam, Chennai-5.

¶37

2.The District Revenue Officer, Kanyakumari District, At Nagercoil.

¶38

_________ Page 4 of 5

¶39

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶40

W.P.(MD)No.20481 of 2013

¶41

K.KUMARESH BABU, J.

¶42

¶43

W.P.(MD)No.20481 of 2013 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2012

¶44

12.12.2022

¶45

_________ Page 5 of 5

¶46

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.Lawrence v. the Additional Chief

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.Lawrence v. the Additional Chief

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

V. Jeevanandham, Vs the District Registrar

P.K. Saminathan Vs the District Collector

K. Indurani Vs the District Collector

A. Chidambaram, Vs the Secretary to Government

N.Kanishkar Nagalingam Vs the District Collector

K.Surendran, Vs the District Registrar