A KARUPPASAMY Vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER EXECUTIVE OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner to call for the records pertaining to proceedings N. K. No. 2103/2000/a10 dt. 11. 6. 2001 issued by the respondent and to quash the same.

(2.) THE petitioner is a barber by profession. He was given a licence to do tonsuring to the pilgrims, who would come to the Temple for tonsure. The respondent used to collect Rs. 10/- from such persons, out of which, Rs. 4/- would be taken by the Temple and one Rupee would be taken for the instrument viz. , blade and Rs. 5/- would be given to the barber/petitioner. While so, during March 2001, the respondent called on the petitioner to produce proof in support of the petitioner's age. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted his SSLC Book, which was verified by the respondent who also took a xerox copy of the same taking note of my date of birth as 15. 5. 1942. The petitioner was informed that the licence would be cancelled on completion of the age of 60 years of the petitioner i. e. 30. 6. 2001 and he would be retired on that date. Accordingly, the order of cancellation of licence was issued on 11. 6. 2001 in which it is stated that the petitioner/barber, who was given the licence for tonsuring, would complete the age of 60 years on 30. 6. 2001. Therefore, from the afternoon on 30. 6. 2001, he was retired from the service. Consequently, the licence of the petitioner has been cancelled with effect from 30. 6. 2001, which has been challenged by the petitioner. Hence the above Writ Petition.

(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that there is no relevancy between the retirement age of 60 years and grant of licence to a barber for tonsuring. The petitioner was not an employee of the Temple. Therefore, there is no question of attaining superannuation. The licence cannot be cancelled on the ground of attaining superannuation at the age of 60 years and hence, the impugned order is liable to be quashed.