SHOLAY COM PVT LTD Vs. REGIONAL DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition, challenging the order of the first respondent, the Regional Director, Southern Region, Chennai dated 20.12.2000 arises under the following circumstances:

(2.) The above order of the first respondent is challenged in this writ petition. Though both the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents elaborately argued on the merits of the case as to whether the second respondent, who has not registered the name "Sholay" as a company, could maintain an application before the first respondent, seeking for a direction to delete the name and cited several authorities on this aspect, I am not inclined to go into those submissions as the writ petition could be disposed of on the preliminary issue namely, whether the petitioner was given sufficient opportunity before the impugned order was passed.

(3.) Mr.C.A.Theagarajan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that before the impugned order was passed, the petitioner was not given any opportunity by the first respondent to put forth its case. Hence, the learned counsel submits that the impugned order is liable to be set aside on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. However, Mr.T.S.Sivagnanam, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent, by producing the files, contended that the petitioner was given notice before the impugned order was passed and the petitioner did not appear for enquiry. Hence, the question of violation of principles of natural justice does not arise in this case and that too, when the petitioner himself failed to appear before the first respondent for enquiry.