Research › Browse › Judgment

Supreme Court of India · body

1986 DIGILAW 685 (SC)

P. M. Antony v. Distt. Collector

1986-12-17

M.M.DUTT, RANGANATH MISRA

body1986
ORDER : 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. On reading the papers and hearing the counsel, we are inclined to take a view that the matter perhaps may involve a problem of law and order and, therefore, it would not be proper for this court to interfere with the impugned order. We therefore, suggested to the petitioner that he should go to the Collector of Ernakulam and ask for a fresh hearing. In case he satisfies the Collector that the apprehension of the administration is not appropriate, we are sure, the Collector would look into the matter again and reconsider his order on such materials as would be placed before him. The petitioner agrees to approach the Collector within a fortnight. In case the petitioner asks for review of the order, the Collector, without feeling bound by what has been said by the High Court, would apply his mind to the new material placed before him and dispose of the matter in accordance with law. The Collector will dispose of the matter within one month from the date of the petitioner's moving him. The special leave petition is disposed of accordingly.