Excerpt
A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for records of the notice of Respondent No. 2 to 4 in connection with the notice for closure of the Bricklin Chamber Unit of the Petitioner dated 19.03.2021 and quash the same.
Facts of the case
The Petitioner was the Bricklin owner. He had challenged the impugned order, which was in the form of a general notice dated 19.03.2021 to close the Bricklin.
Arguments by Both the Parties
The Petitioner had submitted that the very same impugned closure order had been the subject matter in the number of writ petitions which were heard by the learned Judge of this court. A common order came to be passed in all those writ petitions on 30.04.2021 i.e. K. Sundaraj v. The District Collector, Coimbatore, and Others.
By relying on the above order, the Petitioner had contended that the very same announcement which was impugned in the above case was issued to the Petitioner also. The Bricklin had been closed without giving any notice or an opportunity of the petitioner being heard and therefore on that ground, the said notification had to be quashed. The circular was treated by the Petitioner as a notice informing that there would be a stay in running the Bricklin.
The Petitioner further submitted that, the Petitioner was ready and willing to reply to the same and that an opportunity of hearing would be granted to him followed which a decision shall be taken under the law by fixing a time frame that might be stipulated by the court.
The Respondents had submitted that the Petitioner had been running the Bricklin without any license or permission. Also, all the Bricklins without a license were closed throughout the State. The Respondent had relied upon the order of this court in W.P. No. 27356 and 28475 of 2019 on 10.02.2021 where a general direction had been given that Bricklin owners who were encroaching into the forest lands or elephant corridors should be proceeded against without undue delay. Thus, this order was implemented.
Court’s Observations
The Court observed that it was admitted that the Petitioner had been running the Bricklin without any permission or license. It was to be closed because of the unlawful running of the Bricklin, such closure order impugned here came to be issued without placing any notice to the Petitioner. Without allowing the Petitioner to explain the reasons as to why the Bricklin run by the Petitioner should not be closed and only on that ground on which the learned Judge passed the order in the batch of writ petitions as referred above.
Court’s Decision
The court in agreement and inclining with the above-referred order dated 30.04.2021 passed the following order:
- The impugned order should be treated as a notice to the Petitioner. Under this, it was open to the Petitioner to give his explanation to the respondents as to why the Bricklin run by the petitioner should not be closed, within 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
- Upon the receipt of the reply from the Petitioner, the Respondents should pass a speaking order on merit and following the law, within the next 15 days i.e. in totality within one month, the aforesaid exercise should be completed by both sides.
- The Bricklin run by the Petitioner should continue to run and the reasons for the same would be decided only depending upon the orders passed by the respondents. Till such time, the Petitioner was directed not to run the Bricklin unit.
The court gave the above directions and disposed of the writ petition.
CLICK HERE TO VIEW THE JUDGMENT
Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgment from courts. Follow us on Google News, Instagram, LinkedIn, Facebook & Twitter. You can subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.
