AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Devan Ramachandran, J
The singular plea of the petitioner in this Writ Petition is that respondents 2 and 4 be directed to consider Ext.P3 application preferred by him, seeking to compound the offence in Ext.P1, adverting to Ext.P4 recommendation, reiterated by Ext.P7.
In response to the afore submissions made by Sri.M.G.Karthikeyan – learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.Sunil Kumar Kuriakose – learned Government Pleader, submitted that, if the petitioner only requires Ext.P3 application to be considered by the 4th respondent, adverting to Exts.P4 and P7 and disposed of in terms of law, there does not appear to be any legal impediment in doing so; but prayed that this Court may not make any affirmative declarations on his entitlement to any relief and leave it to the competent Authority to take a final decision as per law.
In the afore circumstances, I allow this Writ Petition and direct the 4th respondent – Deputy Commissioner of Excise, to take up Ext.P3 application of the petitioner and to dispose of the same, adverting to Exts.P4 and P7 and after affording him an opportunity of being heard; thus culminating in an appropriate order and necessary action thereon, at the earliest but not later than completion of allotment of shops.
Needless to say, upon a decision taken by the 4th respondent, the petitioner will be at full liberty to approach the 5th respondent for any further claim, including issuance of a Preference Certificate, which shall then be considered by the said Authority, strictly in terms of law.
I, however, clarify that I have not directed either the 4th respondent or the 5th respondent to act in any particular manner and that it will be up to them to take apposite decisions within the applicable Statutory scheme, guided by all relevant and germane aspects.