DR. K.C. MANOHARAN, MANO SURGICAL CLINIC, KARAIKUDI, SIVAGANGA DISTRICT Vs. THE SPECIAL COMMISSIONER AND COMMISSIONER, REVENUE ADMINISTRATION CHEPAUK, CHENNAI AND THE DISTRICT REVENUE OFFICER AND ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE,SIVAGANGA DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

(2.) Though the matter was listed for fixing an early date for hearing, in view of the limited prayer made in the writ petition, on the consent of the parties, the writ petition itself is taken up for disposal.

(3.) The application of the petitioner for renewal of the license having been rejected by the Original Authority, an Appeal was preferred by the petitioner before the Appellate Authority. The grievance of the petitioner is that the said appeal has been dismissed by the Appellate Authority without giving the petitioner any opportunity of hearing. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner therefore contended that the order passed by the Appellate Authority should be quashed and the matter should be re -determined by the Appellate Authority in accordance with law after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The relevant portion of Sec. 18 of The Arms Act, 1959 relating to appeal is as follows: