COMMISSIONER OF POLICE Vs. V P KALAIRAJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by the Commissioner of Police, Chennai City impugning the judgment and order dated 03. 06. 2008 passed by a learned Judge of the writ court came up for hearing before this Court on 13. 08. 2008. On that date, learned counsel for the appellant was present, but nobody appeared for the respondent. As such, the appeal was taken up for hearing. This Bench heard the matter and found that the order-dated 11. 12. 2007, passed by the appellant, was challenged in the writ petition. By the said order, the appellant refused to grant arms licence to V. P. Kalairajan, the sole respondent inter alia on the ground that there are three criminal cases pending against him in various police stations in the City of Chennai. Against the said order of refusal to grant licence, there is a specific provision for filing an appeal under Section 18 of the Arms Act (hereinafter referred to as ?the Act? ). Without filing any appeal, the writ petition was entertained and this Bench held when a specific right is created under the statute namely, the right to get an arms licence, and in case of denial of such right, a special remedy under Section 18 has been provided under the statute, that remedy should be exhausted first before filing a writ petition. The Court further held that such rights are given uno flato. Therefore, without exhausting the said remedy, filing of the writ petition is not permissible, and as such, the order passed on the writ petition was set aside and liberty was given to the sole respondent to file an appeal before the appellate authority within 30 days and if such an appeal is filed, the appellate authority was directed to consider the same without insisting on the period of limitation, since the matter was kept pending before this Court. Inter alia with the aforesaid finding, the appeal was disposed of.

(2.) AFTER the disposal of the appeal, learned counsel for the respondent filed a petition for restoration, being M. P. No. 2 of 2008. Thereafter, on the restoration petition being filed, the matter was restored and was heard on merits in the presence of the parties.

(3.) WHEN the appeal was heard after restoration, the facts in detail, which were not placed or noticed when the order was passed by this Bench on 13. 08. 2008, came to be noticed and were considered by this Court and that is why this Bench is now taking a different view.