Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1614 (MAD)

G. T. Murugesan v. Secretary to Government

2014-06-23

R.MAHADEVAN

body2014
Judgment : 1. This Writ Petition has been filed praying for a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the order made in G.O.Ms.No.259 dated 16.09.2011 issued by the first respondent confirming the orders bearing Na.Ka.No.24763/S2/2008 dated 23.02.2011 passed by the second respondent and quash the same. 2. The petitioner is a document writer by profession, for which, a licence was issued by the respondents. While so, on an allegation against the petitioner, a communication dated 26.09.2008 was issued to the petitioner. In response to which, the petitioner gave his explanation dated 10.10.2008. Not satisfied with his explanation, the third respondent issued an order dated 14.10.2009 suspending the licence of the petitioner for a period of one month. The petitioner did not challenge the same. In the meanwhile, the third respondent again issued another order dated 04.12.2009 holding that the order of cancellation was cancelled, thereby, permitting the petitioner to continue his avocation. While the matter stood thus, it is alleged that on the advice of the third respondent, the petitioner gave an explanation to the letter dated 14.10.2009, under which circumstances, the document in question came to be prepared by him. In response to which, the second respondent passed an order cancelling the licence of the petitioner, permanently. As against which, the petitioner preferred an appeal and the appeal also met with the same fate. Hence, the present Writ Petition is filed for the relief stated supra. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner among the other grounds prima facie submits that no opportunity was given to the petitioner to put forth his defence, before passing the order impugned. 4. The learned Government Advocate submits that an opportunity would be given to the petitioner and the respondents will pass appropriate orders, within the time stipulated by this Court. 5. The sum and substance of the impugned order cancelling the licence of the petitioner came to be passed alleging that the petitioner did not prepare the documents, after inspection of the property connected therewith. The show cause notice issued on those lines was properly replied by the petitioner and thereafter, without any opportunity of personal hearing, the impugned order came to be passed. The cancellation order was challenged before the appellate authority to quash the impugned order, there again, without any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The show cause notice issued on those lines was properly replied by the petitioner and thereafter, without any opportunity of personal hearing, the impugned order came to be passed. The cancellation order was challenged before the appellate authority to quash the impugned order, there again, without any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Further, the ground taken for cancelling the licence of the petitioner is not the one, which ought to have been taken to pass the second impugned order. Hence, the impugned orders are set aside on the ground that the principles of natural justice is violated and the authorities are directed to pass appropriate orders, after affording of opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 6. It goes without saying that the licence of the petitioner is being restored at present, till the respondents complete the enquiry, as directed by this Court vide paragraph No.5 of this order. 7. With the above direction, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.