D.P. ANAND Vs. THE SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, CHENNAI AND THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, CITY POLICE OFFICE,CHENNAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) Though the matter is listed for considering the prayer for stay and direction in W.P.M.P.Nos.17074 and 17075 of 2002, as the question for consideration in the main writ petition and the miscellaneous petitions is one and the same, on consent of the counsels appearing for the parties, the main writ petition itself is taken up for disposal.

(3.) Earlier, the petitioner had filed Writ Petition No.3888 of 2001 which was disposed of by order dated 20.2.2002. The concerned authority was directed to deal with the application for grant of licence, keeping in view the observations made in paragraphs 14, 15 and 21 of the judgment in D.P. Anand vs. State of Tamil Nadu rep. by the Secretary, Home Department, Chennai and another . In fact, in the previous order, those observations had been quoted. It is surprising that while considering the application, the authority has not at all kept in view the observations in paragraphs 14, 15 and 21 of the said decision, and, on the other hand, has purported to cancel a non -existent licence. It is obvious that without application of mind, the authority has rejected the application for reasons best known to such authority.