S PERIYAKARUPPAN Vs. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER AND TAHSILDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is carrying on business of money lending in the name and style of Sree Ega Valli Finance at Madurai. A complaint was given against the petitioner on the Grievance Redressal Day to the first respondent/R.D.O., Madurai, by M/s. S. Abbas Ali and A.Jayasudha.

(2.) On the basis of the said complaint notice was sent to the petitioner to appear before the first respondent/Revenue Divisional Officer vide notice dated 02.08.2005. It is stated that the petitioner had appeared on the said date before the first respondent/R.D.O. The petitioner was not aware of the nature of complaint and no enquiry was conducted in the presence of the petitioner. However, by the impugned order dated 19.09.2005, the first respondent/R.D.O. cancelled the license given to the petitioner. It is this order which is under challenge.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner brings to the notice of this Court Section 14-A of the Tamil Nadu Pawnbrokers Act, 1943, in which the power to cancel or suspend license has been given to the specified authority under Section 4(1). Under Section 4(1) the power of granting license vest only with the Revenue Divisional Officer having jurisdiction over the area in which shop or place or business is situated. But under Section 22 the State Government has power to frame rules for carrying out the purposes of the Act. By virtue of the said power, the State of Tamil Nadu had framed Tamil Nadu Pawnbrokers Rule, 1943. Under Rule 3 the power to grant pawnbrokers licence has been given to the Tahsildar of the Taluk.