P. AJIKUMAR, P.L. SADANAM Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE challenge is against Ext.P12 order passed by the first respondent/competent authority under the Explosive Substance Act/Explosives Rules, whereby the licence granted to the petitioner for manufacturing fire works and also for conducting trade stands cancelled for the reasons stated therein.

(2.) THE main case of the petitioner is that, the said order has been passed by the first respondent without giving an opportunity of hearing, inspite of the direction given by this Court vide Ext.P6 interim order and further, without taking note of the factual position that the petitioner is no more an accused as reported by the Police, vide Ext.P10 report submitted before the concerned Magistrate's Court.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a specific direction was given by this Court as per Ext.P6, which stands confirmed by the Division Bench as per Ext.P9 judgment in the Writ Appeal, for having not interfered with the matter, whereby the first respondent was directed to give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Ext.P6 interim order is dated 4.4.2013. But Ext.P12 order passed by the first respondent on 5.9.2013 does not refer to any opportunity of hearing if given and no reference is given with regard to any notice; nor is there any discussion in this regard in Ext.P12. On this score alone, Ext.P12 is liable to be intercepted.