| SooperKanoon Citation | sooperkanoon.com/964962 |
| Court | Chennai High Court |
| Decided On | Mar-07-2013 |
| Judge | THE HON?BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K.SHARMA |
| Appellant | Azhaganandan |
| Respondent | Sub Divisional Executive Magistrate |
07. 03.2013 THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K.SHARMA W.P. No.6433 of 2009 Azhaganandan .. Petitioner -vs- Sub-Divisional Executive Magistrate and District Revenue Officer, Villupuram .. Respondent Prayer:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the respondent in Na.Ka.C4/48643/2008 dated 17.10.2008 on his file and quash the same. For Petitioners : Mr.R.Chandrasekaran For Respondents : Mr.R.Ravichandran Addl. Govt. Pleader ***** O R D E R The petitioner has approached this Court with the prayer for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari, to quash the impugned order dated 17.10.2008 passed by the Sub-Divisional Executive Magistrate and District Revenue Officer, ordering cancellation of explosive license, granted to the petitioner in view of the fire accident in the factory.
2. Though it is not disputed, that the order is appealable, but the leaned counsel for the petitioner contends, that the availability of alternative remedy of appeal cannot be a bar to exercise the writ jurisdiction, as the impugned order on the face of it is without jurisdiction, as it has been passed by the Sub-Divisional Executive Magistrate / District Revenue Officer, whereas the competent authority to cancel the license is the District Authority, which is defined under the Explosive Rules, 1983, as under: "(7-A) "District Authority" means- (a) in towns having a Commissioner of Police, the Commissioner or a Deputy Commissioner of Police; (b) in any other place, the District Magistrate" 3. The reading of Explosive Rules shows, that the competent authority to issue license has the power to cancel it. The licensing authority under the Rules is District Authority.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the order dated 07.11.2007 passed by the learned District Collector / District Magistrate, Villupuram District, ordering enquiry under Section 9 of Explosives Act with regard to the accident.
5. Learned District Collector and District Magistrate, Villupuram District had appointed Sub-Divisional Executive Magistrate / District Revenue Officer to conduct enquiry into the accident and submit his detailed report. Instead of submitting the report, Sub-Divisional Executive Magistrate / District Revenue Officer passed the impugned order, though he had no jurisdiction to issue such order.
6. On consideration, this Court finds force in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The reading of Rules shows, that the licensing and the revoking authority of license is the District Authority, which is the District Magistrate. The impugned order having been passed by an authority not competent to do so, the impugned order is, therefore, without jurisdiction, thus, cannot be sustained in law.
7. Consequently, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. However, it shall be open to the District Magistrate to take appropriate action for cancellation of license in accordance with law, after giving him an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner by supplying copy of the enquiry report, submitted or to be submitted by the Sub-Divisional Executive Magistrate / District Revenue Officer in pursuance to the direction issued by the learned District Collector / District Magistrate, under Section 9(1)(A) of Explosive Act.
8. No costs. ar To The Sub Divisional Executive Magistrate and District Revenue Officer Villupuram