The petitioner is aggrieved against the proceedings of the fourth respondent dated 06.06.2017, wherein and whereby the petitioner premises was locked and sealed on the reason that the petitioner is operating Cable TV business, without getting permission and following the Rules in connection with such business.
2.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsels appearing for the respondents.
3.Mr.V.R.Venkatesan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the impugned proceedings are liable to be quashed both on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice and also on the ground that the same came to be passed, based on the presumption and assumption especially, when the petitioner is having required license from the competent authorities to run such business. He further submitted that before passing the impugned order, the petitioner was not put on notice and therefore, it violates the principles of natural justice. In so far as the possession of license from the competent authority is concerned, the learned counsel invited this Court's attention to the Certificate issued by the Postmaster, Suramangalam Head Post Office dated 03.01.2015, showing that the petitioner is running a cable TV Network with Registration No.1275 with validation of registration for three years, commencing from 03.01.2015 to 02.01.2018.
4.Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the petitioner is in huge arrears and without paying the same, the petitioner cannot be permitted to run the business.
5.Perusal of the impugned order would disclose the following facts:
a) Before passing such order followed by the action of locking and sealing the premises of the petitioner, he was not put on notice. There is no indication in the impugned order to that effect as well. Therefore, it is evident that the impugned order violates the principles of natural justice.
b) As contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it appears that the petitioner is having a registered Certificate issued by the Department of Posts, India, which is in force till 02.01.2018;
c) The other contention raised by the learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioner is in arrears, is not reflected in the impugned communication. Therefore, this court is of the view that the fourth respondent is not justified in passing the impugned order and consequently, locking and sealing the premises. Yet another factor, which is noticed by this court is that though the impugned order is styled as the one issued by the District Collector, Salem, it is seen that the same was signed by the fourth respondent/Tahsildar, which conduct, this Court is not in a position to understand. In any event, as this Court has taken the view that the impugned order cannot be sustained, whether it is passed by the Tahsildar or the District Collector, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. Consequently, the respondents are directed to remove the seal of the petitioner premises and allow the petitioner to run the cable TV business. However, this order will not preclude the respondents from issuing notice to the petitioner in accordance with law including by way of demand of arrears, if any. If any such notice is issued, it is for the petitioner to reply to the said notice before the concerned respondent. No costs.
13.11.2017 Speaking/Non Speaking Index:Yes/No Note:Issue order copy on 15.11.2017.