Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 3935 (MAD)

K. Ramar v. District Collector, Theni District

2014-10-20

M.VENUGOPAL

body2014
Judgment : 1. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition praying for passing an order directing the respondents from opening a crackers shop at Door No.115/A-241, Main road, Chinnamanur Town, Theni District by considering the representation of the petitioner dated 13.10.2014 2. According to the petitioner, the important conditions imposed by the respondents 1 to 5 for opening a crackers shop were not at all fulfilled and that the police, civic and explosive department officials have to grant license only as per the mandatory rules. Furthermore, there should be two separate ways for entry and exit for the public. But, the shop going to be opened at Door No.115/A-241, Main Road, Chinnamanur is having only one way. Further, a transformer is also situated in front of the said shop and that nearby the said proposed crackers shops a hotel and two lodges and Municipality Middle School are located. Moreover, 500 students are studying in the said school and all the above are situated within 5 to 40 meters distance from the proposed shop. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the representation furnished by the petitioner dated 13.10.2014 was not considered by the respondents. 3. Per contra, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 to 5 strenuously contended that the second respondent passed orders on 17.10.2014 by granting the crackers license and infact, a copy of the order was served to the petitioner. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that the license to sell crackers as per the proceedings dated 17.10.2014 by the second respondent is based on 15 conditions mentioned in Form LE-5 and the license period of validity of the license is till 31.03.2015. If at all, the petitioner is aggrieved by the proceedings of the second respondent, dated 17.10.2014, it is for the petitioner to challenge that order, because of the simple reasons that the petitioner's representation dated 13.10.2014 was duly considered by the parties concerned. 4. At this stage, this Court has perused the proceedings of the second respondent dated 17.10.2014 whereby and whereunder the sale of crackers license was issued. 4. At this stage, this Court has perused the proceedings of the second respondent dated 17.10.2014 whereby and whereunder the sale of crackers license was issued. Considering the fact that the second respondent proceedings dated 17.10.2014 had not considered the representation of the petitioner dated 13.10.2014, in a real pragmatic and proper perspective, after taking into account the factual aspects mentioned therein, this Court in the interest of justice and equitable relief, without going into the merits of the matter and also not expressing any opinion in one way or other on merits or demerits of the case, directs the second respondent to pass fresh orders with regard to the grant of license for sale of crackers in the subject matter in issue by looking into the representation of the petitioner dated 13.10.2014 in a fair manner by dealing with the pros and cons of the said representation of the petitioner, within a period of three days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, of course, after providing necessary opportunities to the petitioner and other concerned by adhering to the principles of natural justice, if the situation so warrants/so demands. 5. With the above said directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.