Disposed

Sundaralakshmi v. The District Revenue Officer

Madras HC28 Oct 2025WP(MD)/30411/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A fireworks factory owner sought revocation of her licence suspension after explosives and safety authorities had already revoked it. The court directed the District Revenue Officer to consider her representation and pass a speaking order within eight weeks after hearing both parties.

What did the court decide?

Direction to 1st respondent to pass a speaking order on licence suspension revocation within 8 weeks after hearing both parties

Sundaralakshmi Vs The District Revenue Officer — Property and Title | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.30411 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 28.10.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE P.T.ASHA

¶6

W.P.(MD).No.30411 of 2025

Sundaralakshmi

... Petitioner

Vs.

The District Revenue Officer, Collectorate Campus, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar.

¶11

P.Thamaraikani ... Respondents

¶12

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the 1st respondent to issue revocation of suspension of license of the petitioners fire factory based on the recommendation made by the Special Tahsildar (Matches and Fireworks Inspection), Sivakasi vide his letter dated 26.09.2025 and tune with the orders passed by the Deputy Controller of Explosives, Sivakasi, dated 08.04.2025 and the Director of Safety and Health, Chennai, dated 30.04.2025.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan For R1 : Mr.D.Sasi Kumar Additional Government Pleader

¶14

1/8

¶15

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

¶16

W.P.(MD)No.30411 of 2025

¶17

ORDER

¶18

This writ petition has been filed seeking to direct the 1st respondent to issue revocation of suspension of license of the petitioners fire factory based on the recommendation made by the Special Tahsildar (Matches and Fireworks Inspection), Sivakasi vide his letter dated 26.09.2025 and tune with the orders passed by the Deputy Controller of Explosives, Sivakasi, dated 08.04.2025 and the Director of Safety and Health, Chennai, dated 30.04.2025.

¶19

Mr.D.Sasi Kumar, learned Additional Government Pleader takes notice on behalf of the 1^st respondent.

¶20

By consent of both the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

¶21

2/8

¶22

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

¶23

W.P.(MD)No.30411 of 2025

¶24

The facts as set out in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition reads as follows:-

¶25

. The petitioner would submit that the property in S.No.1308

¶26

originally belonged to one Mr.P.Muthiah Dasar and 5 others. At that time, the administrators of the A/m.Venitachalapathy Swamy Temple, Thirumalaikkatti claimed rights to the above mentioned property. However, after enquiry the Settlement Thasildhar No.II, Kovilpatty vide proceedings dated 10.07.1970 granted settlement ryotwari patta in favour of the said Mr.P.Muthiah Dasar and 5 others. Aggrieved by the proceedings dated 10.07.1970, the temple administrators had preferred an appeal in A.No.283 of 1970 before the Inam Tribunal/Sub Court, Sivagangai and the said appeal was also dismissed vide order dated 27.01.1973.

¶27

She would submit that the property in S.Nos.1308/1B1A and 1308/1B1b measuring to an extent of 3.27.5 hectares and 4.00.5 hectares were jointly purchased by the petitioner, her father and her mother under a registered Sale Deed dated 21.11.1996 from their vendors viz.,

¶28

3/8

¶29

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

¶30

W.P.(MD)No.30411 of 2025

¶31

V.Kanthavel and Sakaramurthy, who in turn had purchased the above mentioned property from one M.Ramaiah, who is the son of Mr.P.Muthiah Dasar and others under a registered Sale Deed dated 25.03.1992.

¶32

She would submit that after the purchase of the above said property vide Sale Deed dated 21.11.1996, revenue records have also been mutated and patta has also been obtained in their favour. At this juncture, the petitioner had obtained license for running a fireworks factory and has been running a fireworks in the name and style of M/s.Sankar Ganesh Fireworks Factory for the past 27 years.

¶33

She would further submit that on 18.02.2024, a fire broke out at the factory, however, there were no casualties. Subsequent to the incident, the Deputy Controller of Explosives dated 19.02.2024 and the Director of Industrial Safety and Health dated 20.02.2024, suspended the license to run the fireworks factory. Thereafter, the petitioner had reconstructed the buildings based on the advice of the explosives authorities. After renovation, the petitioner the petitioner had approached the authorities to revoke the suspension of the fire factor license. The Deputy Controller of

¶34

4/8

¶35

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

¶36

W.P.(MD)No.30411 of 2025

¶37

Explosives, Sivakasi vide proceedings dated 08.04.2025 revoked the suspension and extended the license period till 31.03.2029. Consequently, the Director of Safety and Health, Chennai had also revoked the suspension vide proceedings dated 30.04.2025. However, the revocation of the 1^st respondent is still pending. When she enquired about the same, she was orally informed that the 2^nd respondent had raised objections.

¶38

She would further submit that there is a civil dispute pending between the petitioner and the 2^nd respondent with respect to S.Nos.610/8 and 610/46 on the file of the learned District Munsif Court, Virudhunagar in O.S.No.104 of 2011 and is now culminating before the learned Subordinate Judge, Virudhunagar in A.S.No.31 of 2018. Due to the antagonism arisen from the civil dispute, the 2^nd respondent has made an appeal before the 1^st respondent stating that the subject property belongs to the temple. However, after careful examination, the 1^st respondent had dismissed the appeal vide order dated 25.10.2021. Aggrieved by the same, the 2^nd respondent has filed a writ petition in W.P(MD)No.28076 of 2022 and this Court by order dated 14.12.2022 had granted an interim injunction.

¶39

5/8

¶40

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

¶41

W.P.(MD)No.30411 of 2025

¶42

She would further submit that she had filed an application to vacate the interim injunction and the same is pending adjudication. Based upon the order of interim injunction, the 2^nd respondent approached the 1^st respondent and the 1^st respondent has yet to pass orders. In these circumstances, she made a representation to the 1^st respondent on 31.04.2025, seeking revocation of the suspension order dated 19.02.2024 and the 1^st respondent by his letter dated 28.07.2025 directed the Special Tahsildar (Matches & Fireworks Inspection), Sivakasi to investigate the issue. After conducting inspection, by a communication dated 26.09.2025, the Special Tahsildar recommended the 1^st respondent that the suspension order be revoked. Despite the favourable recommendation from the Special Tahsildar, no steps has been taken. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has come before this Court.

¶43

Heard the learned counsel on either side.

¶44

6/8

¶45

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

¶46

W.P.(MD)No.30411 of 2025

¶47

Considering the recommendation made by the Special Tahsildar (Matches and Fireworks Inspection), Sivakasi vide order dated 26.09.202 and considering the orders passed by the Deputy Controller of Explosives, Sivakasi dated 08.04.2025 and considering the order passed by the Director of Safety and Health, Chennai dated 30.04.2025, the 1^st respondent is directed to consider the representation seeking revocation of suspension of license to the petitioner and pass a speaking order within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after hearing the petitioner and the 2^nd respondent as well.

¶48

With the above observations, the writ petition stands disposed

¶49

of. No costs.

¶50

28.10.2025

¶51

NCC :yes/No Index :yes/No Internet:yes/No rgm

¶52

7/8

¶53

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

¶54

W.P.(MD)No.30411 of 2025

P.T.ASHA, J.

rgm

The District Revenue Officer, Collectorate Campus, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar.

¶59

W.P.(MD).No.30411 of 2025

¶60

28.10.2025

¶61

8/8

¶62

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

Sundaralakshmi v. The District Revenue Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sundaralakshmi v. The District 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

Joseph Vs The Commissioner

R.Ganesan Vs The Superintendent Engineer

Veeravijay Vs The Executive Engineer

K.Seenivasan Vs The District Collector

T.Ramamoorthy, Vs the Secretary to Rural

R.Angappan Vs The Regional Manager