Partly allowed

Ramadoss.R v. The District Collector Cum District magistrate

Madras HC7 Mar 2024WP(MD)/2791/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged the revocation of his gun license as arbitrary and illegal, claiming no enquiry was conducted. The court found no evidence of an enquiry in the records and remitted the matter for a proper enquiry.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; matter remitted to respondent to conduct proper enquiry and pass order within four weeks.

Ramadoss.R Vs The District Collector Cum District… — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P(MD)No.2791 of 2021

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 07.03.2024

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.MURALI SHANKAR

¶6

W.P(MD)No.2791 of 2021 and W.M.P(MD)No.2291 of 2021

R.Ramadoss

... Petitioner

Vs.

The District Collector cum District Magistrate, Dindigul District, Dindigul. ... Respondent

¶11

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating with the order of the respondent made in Pa.Mu.No.38273/2018/C3, dated 22.12.2020 revoking the petitioner's SBBL Gun License 30/4/NKT and quash the same as it is arbitrary and illegal and in consequence to direct the respondent to renew the petitioner's SBBL Gun License 30/4/NKT for further period of three years.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Suriyanaryanan

¶13

For Respondent : Mrs.K.Christy Theboral, Additional Government Pleader

¶14

1/5

¶15

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

¶16

W.P(MD)No.2791 of 2021

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

The Writ Petition has been filed seeking a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating with the order of the respondent made in Pa.Mu.No.38273/2018/C3, dated 22.12.2020 revoking the petitioner's SBBL Gun License 30/4/NKT and quash the same as it is arbitrary and illegal and in consequence to direct the respondent to renew the petitioner's SBBL Gun License 30/4/NKT for further period of three years.

¶19

The main contention of the revision petitioner is that the respondent, without conducting any enquiry by taking note of the age of the petitioner, has rejected the requisition.

¶20

When the matter is taken up for hearing today, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent would submit that even in the impugned order, the respondent has observed that after conducting enquiry, the impugned order came to be passed.

¶21

2/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶22

W.P(MD)No.2791 of 2021

¶23

On perusal of the records, it is seen that there is no material to

¶24

show that an enquiry was conducted and on that basis, the respondent has come to a decision that the petitioner is not in a position to handle the gun.

¶25

Considering the submissions made by learned counsel on either

¶26

side, the impugned order is hereby set aside and the matter is remitted back to the respondent. The respondent is directed to conduct proper enquiry and pass order in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶27

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

¶28

Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.

¶29

07.03.2024

¶30

NCC :Yes/No Index :Yes/No Internet : Yes/ No das

¶31

3/5

¶32

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

¶33

W.P(MD)No.2791 of 2021

¶34

¶35

1.The The District Collector cum District Magistrate, Dindigul District, Dindigul.

¶36

2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶37

4/5

¶38

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

¶39

W.P(MD)No.2791 of 2021

¶40

K.MURALI SHANKAR, J

¶41

das

¶42

Order made in W.P(MD)No.2791 of 2021 and W.M.P(MD)No.2291 of 2021

¶43

Dated : 07.03.2024

¶44

5/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Ramadoss.R v. The District Collector Cum District magistrate

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramadoss.R v. The District Collector Cum District magistrate

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

Senthur Pandian.P Vs the District Collector

Rajan Tennyson Vs the Regional Passport Officer

Veeramanikandan.P Vs the Manager Marketing and Service

Prema.S Vs the Dist.Registrar (Administration)

Y.Selvaraj Vs a.Anthony Ammal (Died)

Rajesh Rahul.P Vs the Commissioner