D.Selvaraj, S/O.Duraisamy v. The District Revenue Officer &

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated: 22.12.2016 Coram THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAVICHANDRA BAABU Writ Petition (MD)No.24373 of 2016 and W.M.P.(MD).No.17607 of 2016 D.SELVARAJ . . . Petitioner -VsTHE DISTRICT REVENUE OFFICER & ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE COLLECTORATE TIRUNELVELI, TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT. . . . Respondent Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the entire records in connection with the impugned orders passed by the respondent dated 23.11.2016 in Mu.Mu.E4/5069/2015 and Mu.Mu.E4/26344/2015 and quash the same and consequently to direct the respondent to renew/grant the licence to the petitioner to run the explosives manufacturing unit at Door Nos.24A, 24B & 24C comprised in S.No.1486/1, New S.No.1486/1C1, 1C2 Vadakku Vallioor Village, Radhapuram Taluk Tirunelveli District within a time frame.

For petitioner : Mr. K.K.Senthil For respondents : Mr. A.Muthukaruppan Additional Government Pleader

O R D E R

This writ petition has been filed challenging the order of the respondent dated 23.11.2016 refusing to renew the licence granted to the petitioner under the Explosives Act, 1884. 2.The case of the petitioner in short is as follows: The petitioner was issued with a Form I licence under the Explosives Act for possession of 12.5 kilograms gun powder and 12.5 kgs of sulphur, by the respondent in licence Nos.84/83-84 and the above licence was periodically renewed till 31.03.2016. the petitioner applied for renewal of the said licence through application dated 29.01.2016 well before the expiry of the licence period. His application dated 27.05.2015 for grant of licence for use of sulphur in fire works is also pending consideration. However, the respondent had issued the impugned order refusing to renew the licence without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, also by stating certain reasons, when actually the very same objections stated

earlier was rejected by the very same respondent while renewing the licence till 31.03.2016 by passing an order dated 19.03.2015.

3.The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent, based on the instructions, submitted that the present impugned order came to be passed by considering the report of the Sub Collector dated 26.07.2016 and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for renewal.

4.However, the learned Additional Government Pleader fairly submitted that the reasons set out in the present report submitted by the Sub-Collector are the very same reasons earlier referred to in the report dated 25.09.2014 while renewing the licence upto 31.03.2016.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent.

6.The impugned order rejecting the renewal request of the petitioner is challenged mainly on two grounds. Firstly, the petitioner urges violation of principles of natural justice. Secondly, it is contended that the objections which were earlier raised and rejected for granting earlier renewal were once again considered and stated as the reasons for rejecting the present renewal request.

7.It is not in dispute that before passing the impugned order, the petitioner was not heard. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, Rule 114 of the Explosives Rules, 2008, contemplates a reasonable opportunity of hearing to be given to the petitioner before passing the order of rejection. Therefore, on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice, the impugned order of rejection of renewal request cannot be sustained. Further, it is also seen from the report dated 26.07.2016 of the Sub-Collector, that the very same objections raised earlier in the year 2014 are once again raised. Therefore, it is for the respondent to get a fresh report from the Sub-Collector and pass orders afresh by considering the said report as well as by hearing the petitioner.

8.Accordingly, this writ petition stands allowed in part and the impugned order passed in Mu.Mu.No.26344/2015, dated 23.11.2016 insofar as rejecting the request of the petitioner for renewal of licence No.84/83-84 is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the respondent for considering the matter afresh after giving due opportunity to the petitioner and pass

fresh orders on merits and in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Needless to say that before passing any order, the respondent shall get a fresh report from the Sub-Collector and consider the same while passing the order.

9. Insofar as the order dated 23.11.2016 rejecting the application of the petitioner for the use of sulphur is concerned, it is for the petitioner to challenge the said order before the appellate authority within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 10.The Registry is directed to return the original impugned order dated 23.11.2016 passed in MU.Mu.E4/5069/2015 and Mu.Mu.E4/26344/2015 to the petitioner so as to enable him to file the appeal.

Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(Writs) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To THE DISTRICT REVENUE OFFICER & ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE COLLECTORATE TIRUNELVELI, TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT.

Copy to:- The Section Officer, ER Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

+1cc to the Spl.Govt.Pleader in SR No.83187 +2cc to Mr.K.K.Senthil, Advocate in SR No.82841 W.P.(md).NO.24373 of 2016 and WMP(MD).17607/2016 22.12.2016 vs anr/skn/sar3/11.01.2017/3p/6c