IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 09/12/2004
Coram
The Honourable Mr. Justice A.K.RAJAN
Writ Petition No.11583 of 2001
A.Karuppasamy .. Petitioner
-Vs-
Joint Commissioner/
Executive Officer,
Arulmigu Thandayuthapani
Thirukkoil,
Palani. .. Respondent
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari as stated therein.
For petitioner:Mr. B.Ravi
For respondent:Mr.M.Venkatachalapathy
Senior Counsel for
Mr. M.Sriram
:O R D E R
The above Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner to
call for the records pertaining to proceedings N.K.No.2103/2000/A10
dt.11.6.2001 issued by the respondent and to quash the same.
2. The petitioner is a barber by profession. He was given a licence
to do tonsuring to the pilgrims, who would come to the Temple for tonsure.
The respondent used to collect Rs.10/- from such persons, out of which, Rs.
4/- would be taken by the Temple and one Rupee would be taken for the
instrument viz., blade and Rs.5/- would be given to the barber/petitioner.
While so, during March 2001, the respondent called on the petitioner to
produce proof in support of the petitioner’s age. Accordingly, the petitioner
submitted his SSLC Book, which was verified by the respondent who also took a
xerox copy of the same taking note of my date of birth as 15.5.1942. The
petitioner was informed that the licence would be cancelled on completion of
the age of 60 years of the petitioner i.e. 30.6.2001 and he would be retired
on that date. Accordingly, the order of cancellation of licence was issued on
11.6.2001 in which it is stated that the petitioner/ barber, who was given the
licence for tonsuring, would complete the age of 60 years on 30.6.2001.
Therefore, from the afternoon on 30.6.2001, he was retired from the service.
Consequently, the licence of the petitioner has been cancelled with effect
from 30.6.2001, which has been challenged by the petitioner. Hence the above
Writ Petition.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that there is
no relevancy between the retirement age of 60 years and grant of licence to a
barber for tonsuring. The petitioner was not an employee of the Temple.
Therefore, there is no question of attaining superannuation. The licence
cannot be cancelled on the ground of attaining superannuation at the age of 60
years and hence, the impugned order is liable to be quashed.
4. Mr. Venkatachalapathi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
respondent submits that it is only a licence, which can be revoked at any
point of time without assigning any reason.
5. Consequently, learned counsel for the petitioner would claim his
right to the licence, which was revoked by the respondent on 31.5.20 02 by his
proceedings dated 23.5.2002.
6. According to the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent, by way of
interim order of this Court, the petitioner continued to enjoy the benefit of
licence even during the pendency of this Writ Petition and when it was revoked
by the proceedings of the respondent dated 2 3.5.2002, though the petitioner
challenged the same by way of Revision before the Commissioner, HR & CE, which
was dismissed, the petitioner did not choose to challenge that dismissal order
and the said order has become final between the parties and hence the
petitioner is not entitled to proceed with this Writ petition and the Writ
Petition has become infructuous. Therefore, the Writ Petition is liable to be
dismissed.
7. Admittedly, the petitioner is not an employee of the Temple.
Therefore, service rules are not applicable to him and also there cannot be a
question of attaining the age of superannuation on completion of 60 years of
the age. It is the licence, which was granted to the petitioner, to be
renewed every year. For violation of any conditions thereunder, the licence
can be revoked. Otherwise, the licence cannot be revoked. However, no
violation of any condition is placed before this Court. Therefore, the
licence granted to the petitioner cancelled on the ground of attaining the age
of 60 years is not legally permissible and hence the impugned order is liable
to be set aside.
8. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the
licence granted to the petitioner was subject to renewal of the same every
year and therefore, the respondent has got right not to renew the licence in
future. This question does not arise at this point of time in this Writ
Petition. As and when such orders are passed, it is always open for the
petitioner to challenge the same seeking for appropriate remedy.
9. It is unfortunate that the Joint Commissioner/Executive Officer
has sought to revoke the licence granted to the petitioner, who eaks his
livelihood by tonsuring the pilgrims, on the ground of attaining the age of
superannuation. The officers must show some restraints in such matters.
10. With the above observations, the Writ petition is allowed. No
costs.
Index: yes
Internet: yes
asvm
To
Joint Commissioner/
Executive Officer,
Arulmigu Thandayuthapani
Thirukkoil,
Palani.