AGRI HORTICULTURAL SOCIETY Vs. STATE OF TAMILNADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner Society, represented by its Honorary Secretary has filed the present writ petition, seeking to challenge an order of the second respondent District Collector dated 08.12.2010.

(2.) WHEN the matter came up on 13.12.2010, this Court granted an interim stay after recording the submissions made by Mr.G.Rajagopalan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Mr.S.Thiruvenkataswamy. On the same day, the learned Advocate General made certain submissions which was recorded by this Court. In paragraph 2 of the order, it was observed as follows:-

(3.) MR.G.Rajagopalan, learned Senior Counsel contended that the question of jurisdiction of the District Collector must be gone into. However, it was admitted by the learned Advocate General that the impugned order inasmuch as it had not considered the petitioner's objection and since the petitioner did not have an opportunity, they are willing to redo the exercise and agreeing to withdraw the impugned order. The petitioner's explanation, if any will be considered by the second respondent District Collector in accordance with law. After hearing arguments by both sides for some time, this Court informed that the petitioner Society must raise all the issues before the District Collector and only when any adverse findings are rendered, they should move the appropriate forum challenging such order. Since the impugned order can be set aside on the narrow ground based upon the concession given by the learned Advocate General and also as per the stand taken by the second respondent, this Court is not inclined to allow both parties to address arguments on the merits of the case. The matter was adjourned so as to enable the learned Advocate General to get the clear stand of the first respondent.