1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 08.12.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN Writ Petition(MD)No.13979 of 2011 H.Ameerdeen ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The District Collector, Tiruchirappalli District. 2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, O/o.Revenue Divisional Officer, Tiruchirappalli. 3.K.Kannan 4.T.V.Sabeson ... Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned notice issued by the second respondent vide Na.Ka.A1/7245/2011 dated 28.11.2011 and quash the same and consequently forbearing the first and second respondents or their subordinates from interfering with the petitioner's business running in the name and style of M/s.Rasi Marketing Company, without due process of law. For Petitioner : Mr.D.Shanmugarajasethupathi For Respondents : Mr.K.P.Krishnadass, Government Advocate for R1 and R2 O R D E R The petitioner has come up with the above writ petition, challenging a notice of enquiry issued by the second respondent. 2.Heard Mr.D.Shanmugarajasethupathi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr.K.P.Krishnadass, learned Government Advocate, takes notice for the respondents 1 and 2. 3.The petitioner claims to be running a hardware shop, where Asbestos Cement roofing sheets are also sold. On a complaint allegedly given by the residents of the locality, the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 second respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, has issued a notice calling upon the petitioner to appear for an enquiry on 09.12.2011. 4.The grievance of the petitioner is that neither the second respondent is competent to initiate any enquiry, nor has the petitioner been accused of violating any provision of law. Therefore, the petitioner contends that the impugned notice is wholly without jurisdiction and without substance. 5.It is true that the Revenue Divisional Officer, who is an Executive Magistrate, may not be competent to close down a shop, except by invoking Section 133 Cr.P.C. But the Corporation of Trichy is not a party to the writ petition. It is not known whether the petitioner has taken a license or whether the petitioner is obliged to take a license in terms of the Municipal Corporation Act. Therefore, it is better that all these issues including the question of jurisdiction of the second respondent, is decided by the second respondent. 6.In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to file a detailed reply to the notice. The second respondent shall consider the reply and also consider the question of his jurisdiction and after giving opportunities to the residents of the locality who have complained, the second respondent shall take appropriate action, if necessary. A copy of the complaint filed by the residents of the locality shall first be furnished by the second respondent, to the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner shall file a reply. Consequently, M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2011 is closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(Records) /True Copy/ Sub-Assistant Registrar To 1.The District Collector, Tiruchirappalli District. 2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, O/o.Revenue Divisional Officer, Tiruchirappalli +Two Ccs to Mr.ShanmugarajaSethupathi, Advocate, SR.No.42930 KM rl/5c – 8.12.2011 Writ Petition(MD)No.13979 of 2011 08.12.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/