K.Ramasamy v. The Principal Secretary/Commissioner of Revenue Administration, Disaster Manager and Mitigation Department, Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai – 6

run thus:2.1.The petitioner, who is residing at Thirunagar Colony,Sankari, Salem District, owns lands worth about 10 lakhs and isalso having a house situated in a remote area of his Village. Heis also doing business in the name and style of 'C.K.R. Finance'from the year 2000 and is also running a Textile shop in the nameand style of 'Dinesh Garments' at Sankari. He is activelycultivating sugarcane and turmeric crops in his land measuring anextent of 5 ½ acres situated at Poochapatti, Sankari Taluk and inorder to carry on business activities and agriculturaloperation, he always used to carry liquid cash with him. He isliving with his wife and children and one of his sons isphysically challenged and his wife used to accompany him. Insuch circumstances, the petitioner submitted an application dated24.04.2004 to the 2nd respondent to grant Revolver licence to himfor self protection. 2.2.The said application dated 24.04.2004 has been processedand reports have been called for from the Revenue DivisionalOfficer (RDO), Sankari and the Superintendent of Police, Salem.Accordingly, the petitioner appeared before them and explainedthe necessity to get the Revolver Licence for self protection.But, the RDO, Sankari, in his Report dated 17.01.2005 and theSuperintendent of Police, Salem, in his proceedings dated17.01.2005 did not recommend for grant of licence. 2.3.The 2nd respondent did not appreciate the grievance ofthe petitioner properly and refused to grant licence vide hisorder dated 02.04.2007 made in Mu.Mu.C.4/8742/2005 on the groundthat the RDO Sankari and the Superintendent of Police, Salem hasnot recommended for grant of licence. Aggrieved by the saidorder dated 02.04.2007, the petitioner filed an appeal before the1st respondent on 04.05.2007 on various grounds. The said appealwas taken on file in A.A.No.81 of 2007 on the file of the 1strespondent and the matter was argued at length on 02.11.2009.The said appeal was also dismissed on the ground that theSuperintendent of Police, Salem did not recommend the grant oflicence. 2.4.As both the respondents did not consider the imminentpossibility of danger to his life, the petitioner, beingaggrieved by the order dated 25.11.2009 passed by the 1strespondent confirming the order dated 02.04.2007 passed by the 2ndrespondent, has approached this court by way of the present writpetition, seeking to quash the same and to re-consider hisrequest for grant of Revolver Licence. 3.The 2nd respondent has filed counter affidavit and has https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ stated as follows:(i)The petitioner, residing at No.1/17/10/2-ThiruchengodeRoad, Thirunagar Colony, Sankari, Salem District applied for arevolver gun licence for self-protection to the Collector, Salemon 20.04.2004. The Collector, Salem has called for a report fromthe Tahsildar, Sankari; Revenue Divisional Officer, Sankari andthe Superintendent of Police, Salem. The Tahsildar, Sankari, inhis Report in K.Dis/3420/2004/J dated 19.11.2004 has rejected hisrequest, as there are so many facilities available nowadays viz.,Credit Card, ATM, Demand Drafts, Transfer of Money, etc. from oneaccount to another. The RDO, Sankari, in his report inL.Dis.No.4605/2004 dated 17.01.2005 has re-directed the TahsildarReport and rejected the petitioner's request for issuance of GunLicence (Revolver). The Superintendent of Police, Salem, in hisreport in ROC G1/20591/2004 dated 17.01.2005, has stated thatthere are so many persons similar to the petitioner doing variousbusinesses and the petitioner has not mentioned any specificincident faced by him for his life danger. As there are nocomplaints filed by him relating to insecurity of his life, theSuperintendent of Police, Salem has also rejected his request. (ii)The Collector, Salem heard the petitioner on 26.03.2007and being not satisfied with the reasons adduced by him, rejectedhis request for grant of licence in K.Dis.5742/2005/C4 dated02.04.2007. Aggrieved by the Collector's order, the petitionermade an appeal before the Principal Commissioner and Commissionerof Revenue Administration, Chennai on 04.05.2007. The appealpetition was also dismissed on 25.11.2009. Aggrieved by theorder passed in the Appeal, the petitioner has filed the presentwrit petition. 4.The 2nd respondent, in his counter, admits that thepetitioner is running Textile business, Finance and lorrybusiness in Sankari Village, Sankari Taluk, Salem District and isalso having above 5 acres of land in Sankari Taluk. But, hedenies the contents of the writ petition stating that there areso many facilities available for transfer of money from oneaccount to another viz., ATM, Credit Card, Mail Transfer, etc. toavoid carrying money in hand. Moreover, the petitioner has notmade any complaint before the police citing any danger to hislife. Therefore, he would submit that the refusal of grant ofRevolver licence by the Collector, Salem is in accordance withlaw. 5.Mr.N.Manokaran, learned counsel for the petitioner wouldsubmit that the petitioner is an Income Tax Assessee and there isno case or bad antecedents against him and that the respondentshave simply rejected his application without taking note of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ necessity and the circumstances prevailing in and around Sankariarea. He would point out that Section 7 of the Arms Act, 1951makes it clear that there is no absolute prohibition againstgiving a licence for a prohibited arms, and whenever anapplication is made, the concerned authorities must consider therelevant circumstances and should not act arbitrarily indisposing the same.5a.In support of his case, learned counsel for thepetitioner has relied on the following:(i)a decision of this Court reported in (2009) 3 MLJ 1295in the case of The Commissioner of Police, Egmore vs.V.P.Kalairajan"18.It is nobody's case that the petitioner hasmade an application for grant of licence forprohibited arms or prohibited ammunition. Prohibitedarms and prohibited ammunition are defined underSection 2(h) and 2(i) of the said Act. Thepetitioner's application is for a licence for arevolver. It is a non-prohibited arms, and the saidlicence has been asked by the petitioner for hispersonal safety. Prayer for such a licence can berefused by the Licensing Authority in accordance withthe provisions under Section 14(1)(b) of the saidAct. In Section 14(1)(b), there are sub-clauses (i)and (ii). Sub-clause (i) is further divided into(1), (2) and (3). Before any application for licencecan be refused by the Licensing Authority under thesecategories, the Licensing Authority must have reasonsto believe that the applicant falls in any of thosecategories of Clauses (1), (2) and (3) of Section 14(1)(b)(i). The concept of reasons to believe willgovern cases of refusal of licence under Section 14(1)(b)(ii). "(ii)yet another decision of this Court reported in (2007) 1MLJ (Crl.) 339 in the case of K.Mani vs. District RevenueOfficer, Madurai and another"8.On a perusal of the impugned order, itreveals that the appellate authority, after carefullyexamining the appeal and perusing the connectedrecords, was of the view that there is no necessityfor the appellant to possess SBML Gun forcrop/cattle/self protection and that crop/cattleprotection also does not require a gun. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

9.As rightly contended by the learned counselfor the petitioner, the view taken by the appellateauthority is against the provisions under sub-section(3) to Section 13 of the Arms Act, 1959 which readsas under:"(3)The licensing authority shall grant- (a)a licence under Section 3where the licence is required(i)by a citizen of India in respect ofa smooth bore gun having a barrel of not lessthan twenty inches in length to be used forprotection or sport or in respect of a muzzleloading gun to be used for bona fide cropprotection."10.When the above said provision says that thelicensing authority shall grant licence to possessgun, if the same is to be used for bona fide cropprotection, the licensing authority cannot refuse thesame on the ground that crop/cattle protection doesnot require a gun and therefore, this Court is of theview that the order of the second respondent is quitecontrary to the said provision of law and therefore,it is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the orderof the second respondent dated 14.11.2000 is setaside."(iii)a decision of the Kerala High Court reported in2005 MLJ (Crl.) 727 in the case of Ganesh Prasad vs. Board ofRevenue (L.R.)"7.... It is not understood as to what ismeant by the appellate authority when it said thatall relevant aspects have been considered, when aperusal of the order passed by the DistrictCollector would show that the only reason forrejection of the application filed by the petitioneris that the Superintendent of Police has notrecommended the issue of licence. Each applicationfor the licence has necessarily to be considered onits own individual merits. He must bear in mind therelevant facts and must refuse to be guided byirrelevant facts. He has to act bona fide. Hecannot abuse his discretionary power, no doubt. Itis essential that he applies his mind when anyapplication comes up before him to the individualfacts present by the applicant before he takes a https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ decision as to whether the application should begranted or refused. In this context, I draw supportfrom what is stated in Wade on Administrative Law."The proper authority may share itspower with someone else, or may allowsomeone else to dictate to it by decliningto act without their consent or bysubmitting to their wishes or instructions.The effect then is that the discretionconferred by Parliament is exercised, atleast in part, by the wrong authority, andthe resulting decision is ultra vires andvoid."If one peruses the order of the DistrictCollector, it can be seen that the only reasonstated is that the Superintendent of Police had notrecommended issue of licence. I would take the viewthat this is a case where the authority hasvirtually declined to act without the consent of theSuperintendent of Police and it amounts to theexercise of discretion by the wrong authority. Thesaid order has been upheld by Ex.P2 order. As Ihave already stated, it is stated that the decisionhas been arrived at after due consideration of allrelevant aspects which is itself incorrect."(iv)a decision of the Allahabad High Court reported in 2012(1) ALJ 135 in the case of Brij Nandan Singh vs. State of U.P.and others"7.A fire arm licence cannot be denied only onconjectures and surmises and without appreciating theobjective of statute under which the power is beingexercised. Right to life and liberty which includeswithin its ambit right of security and safety of aperson and taking, adopting and pursuing such means asare necessary for such safety and security, is afundamental right of every person. Keeping a fire armfor the purpose of personal safety and security is amode and manner of protection of oneself and enjoymentof fundamental right of life and liberty under Article21 of the Constitution. In the interest ofmaintenance of law and order certain reasonablerestrictions have been imposed on such right but thatwould not make the fundamental right itself to bedependant on the vagaries of executive authorities.It is not a kind of privilege being granted by https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Government to individual but only to the extent wheregrant of fire arm licence to an individual woulddemonstratively prejudice or adversely affect themaintenance of law and order including peace andtranquility in the society, ordinarily such rightshall not be denied. It is in these circumstances,this Court has observed that grant of fire arm licenceordinarily be an action and denial an exception. InVinod Kumar Shukla vs. State of U.P. and others, (WritPetition No.38645 of 2011), decided on 15.07.2011,this Court has said:"When a fire arm licence is granted forpersonal safety and security, it does notmean that in the family consisting ofseveral persons, only one fire arm licenceis to be granted. Moreover, this cannot bea reason for denial of arm licence. Firearm licence can be denied only if the reasonassigned by applicant or details given byhim in application are not found to becorrect but merely because there are onefire arm licence already possessed by oneof the family member, the same cannot bedenied. Grant of fire arm licence shouldordinarily be an action and denial should bean exception. The approach of authoritiesbelow is clearly arbitrary and illegal. Italso lacks purpose and objective of thestatute."8.The authorities empowered to grant licenceunder the Act ought not to behave as if they are partof the old British sovereignty and the applicant is apity subject whose every demand deserved to be crushedon one or the other pretext. The requirement of anIndian citizen governed by rule of law under theIndian Constitution deserved to be considered withgreater respect and honour. The authorities thusshall have considered the requirement of applicantwith more pragmatic and practical approach. Unlessthey find that in the garb of safety and security,applicant in fact intend to use the weapon byobtaining a licence for a purpose other than selfdefence, it ought not to have been denied suchlicence. I am not putting the statutory power ofauthority concerned in a compartment since there maybe more than one reasons for exercising statutorydiscretion against applicant but then that must https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ justify in the context of purpose and objective ofstatute and necessarily ought not be whimsical."(v)another decision of the Allahabad High Court reported in2012 (111) AIC 283 in the case of Akash Kumar Singh vs. State ofU.P. And others"5.The reason for conferring the power ofgrant of licence to the District Magistrate is thathe is in a better position to ascertain theantecedents of the applicant through its variousagencies including Police Station concerned andother reliable sources. The grant of license issubject to the satisfaction of the DistrictMagistrate. This satisfaction is to be derived bythe District Magistrate from various factors : (a)general conduct of the applicant, (b) probabilityof misuse of the licence, (c) involvement incriminal activities. It may also be noted thatgrant of licence is not dependant upon anycondition which is not enumerated under sections 13and 14 of the Act. However, the applicant isrequired to satisfy the licensing authority that hedoes not fall in any of category contained inSection 14(1)(a) and (b). The grounds forrejecting licence contained in Section 14(i)(ii) ofthe Act which empowers the licensing authority torefuse licence in case he deems it necessary forsafety and security of the public. This is an areawhere satisfaction of the District Magistrate isessentially required. 6.In view of the requirement as providedunder Section 14 of the Act, it is obligatory uponthe District Magistrate/Licensing Authority torecord the reasons in writing, in case he refusesto grant a licence and communicate the same to theapplicant. One of the grounds enumerated underSection 14 of the Act is that the DistrictMagistrate can refuse to grant the licence if he issatisfied that grant of licence to the applicantwill disturb the peace and tranquility of the area.Various factors including registration of thecriminal can also be a ground for rejecting theapplication provided the satisfaction is arrived onthe basis of objective material collected fromvarious agencies. The grant of licence isstatutory right unless and until the person https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ satisfies the requirement of statute, licensecannot be granted. 7.The satisfaction of the DistrictMagistrate on the basis of material has to bespecific and not vague. He cannot rely ongeneralized accusation against the applicant unlessthere are specific allegations certifying characterand conduct of the applicant and also its effect onthe society at large."6.Per contra, Mrs.A.Srijeyanthi, learned SpecialGovernment Pleader would submit that the petitioner has not madeout the existence of any serious threat to his life and propertyand the rejection of grant of licence by the respondents is inaccordance with law. 7.Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused therelevant materials available on record.8.A circumspection of the facts would reveal that thepetitioner is a resident of Sankari village in Salem Districtand he is doing finance business in the name and style 'C.K.R.Finance' from the year 2000, in addition to textile business inthe name and style 'Dinesh Garments' at Sankari. He also ownslands worth about 10 lakhs and has a house situated in a remotearea of his Village. It is claimed by the petitioner that inthe course of his business, he has to travel to many places andcarry liquid cash with him. Therefore, he has applied for arevolver licence on 24.04.2004 to the second respondent, namely,the District Collector, Sankari. Based on the application of thepetitioner, the second respondent called for reports from theTahsildar, Sankari; Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO), Sankari andthe Superintendent of Police, Salem. Following the reports fromthe said authorities, who did not recommend for grant of licenceto the petitioner, the second respondent rejected the applicationof the petitioner vide the proceedings, dated 02.04.2007.Aggrieved over the said order, the petitioner preferred an appealbefore the first respondent and it came to be dismissed by theimpugned order, dated 25.11.2009.9.At this stage, the point that arises for considerationis, whether the order under challenge, confirming the order ofthe original authority, rejecting the request of the petitionerfor grant of revolver licence, is valid in law ?10.For deciding the said question, it is worth to refer torelevant provisions viz., Sections 13 and 14 of the ArmsAct,1959, which provisions read as under : https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ "13. Grant of licences.—(1) An applicationfor the grant of a licence under Chapter IIshall be made to the licensing authority andshall be in such form, contain suchparticulars and be accompanied by such fee,if any, as may be prescribed.(2) On receipt of an application, thelicensing authority shall call for thereport of the officer-in-charge of thenearest police station on that application,and such officer shall send his reportwithin the prescribed time.(2-A) The licensing authority, after suchinquiry, if any, as it may considernecessary, and after considering the reportreceived under sub-section (2), shall,subject to the other provisions of thisChapter, by order in writing either grantthe licence or refuse to grant the same:Provided that where the officer-in-charge ofthe nearest police station does not send hisreport on the application within theprescribed time, the licensing authoritymay, if it deems fit, make such order, afterthe expiry of the prescribed time, withoutfurther waiting for that report.(3) The licensing authority shall grant—(a) a licence under Section 3 where thelicence is required—(i) by a citizen of India in respect of asmooth bore gun having a barrel of not lessthan twenty inches in length to be used forprotection or sport or in respect of amuzzle loading gun to be used for bona fidecrop protection:Provided that where having regard to thecircumstances of any case, the licensingauthority is satisfied that a muzzle loadinggun will not be sufficient for cropprotection, the licensing authority maygrant a licence in respect of any othersmooth bore gun as aforesaid for suchprotection, or(ii) in respect of a point 22 bore rifle oran air rifle to be used for target practiceby a member of a rifle club or rifleassociation licensed or recognised by theCentral Government; https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (b) a licence under Section 3 in any othercase or a licence under Section 4, Section5, Section 6, Section 10 or Section 12, ifthe licensing authority is satisfied thatthe person by whom the licence is requiredhas a good reason for obtaining the same.""14. Refusal of licences.—(1)Notwithstanding anything in Section 13, thelicensing authority shall refuse to grant—(a) a licence under Section 3, Section 4 orSection 5 where such licence is required inrespect of any prohibited arms or prohibitedammunition;(b) a licence in any other case underChapter II,—(i) where such licence is required by aperson whom the licensing authority hasreason to believe—(1) to be prohibited by this Act or by anyother law for the time being in force fromacquiring, having in his possession orcarrying any arms or ammunition, or(2) to be of unsound mind, or(3) to be for any reason unfit for a licenceunder this Act; or(ii) where the licensing authority deems itnecessary for the security of the publicpeace or for public safety to refuse togrant such licence.(2) The licensing authority shall not refuseto grant any licence to any person merely onthe ground that such person does not own orpossess sufficient property.(3) Where the licensing authority refuses togrant a licence to any person it shallrecord in writing the reasons for suchrefusal and furnish to that person on demanda brief statement of the same unless in anycase the licensing authority is of theopinion that it will not be in the publicinterest to furnish such statement."11.Section 13 provides for grant of licence. As per thesaid Section, the competent authority to grant lincence is theDistrict Magistrate-cum-District Collector. Sub-section (1)states that an application for the grant of a licence shall be https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ made to the licensing authority and shall be in such form,contain such particulars and be accompanied by such fee, if any,as may be prescribed. Sub-section (2) provides that on receiptof an application, the licensing authority shall call for thereport of the officer-in-charge of the nearest police station onthat application, and such officer shall send his report withinthe prescribed time. Thereafter, under Clause (2-A), there shallbe an enquiry, if any, as the licensing authority may considernecessary, and after considering the report received under sub-section (2), the licensing authority shall, by an order inwriting either grant the licence or refuse to grant the same,provided that where the officer-in-charge of the nearest policestation does not send his report on the application within theprescribed time, the licensing authority may, if it deems fit,make such order, after the expiry of the prescribed time, withoutfurther waiting for that report. As per Sub-section (3), thelicensing authority shall grant (a) a licence under Section 3where the licence is required (i) by a citizen of India inrespect of a smooth bore gun having a barrel of not less thantwenty inches in length to be used for protection or sport or inrespect of a muzzle loading gun to be used for bona fide cropprotection, provided that where having regard to thecircumstances of any case, the licensing authority is satisfiedthat a muzzle loading gun will not be sufficient for cropprotection, the licensing authority may grant a licence inrespect of any other smooth bore gun as aforesaid for suchprotection, or (ii) in respect of a point 22 bore rifle or an airrifle to be used for target practice by a member of a rifle clubor rifle association licensed or recognised by the CentralGovernment; (b) a licence under Section 3 in any other case or alicence under Section 4, Section 5, Section 6, Section 10 orSection 12, if the licensing authority is satisfied that theperson by whom the licence is required has a good reason forobtaining the same.12.Section 14 deals with how licence can be refused. As perSub-section (1) thereof, notwithstanding anything in Section 13,the licensing authority shall refuse to grant (a) a licence underSection 3, Section 4 or Section 5 where such licence is requiredin respect of any prohibited arms or prohibited ammunition; (b) alicence in any other case under Chapter II,— (i) where suchlicence is required by a person whom the licensing authority hasreason to believe— (1) to be prohibited by this Act or by anyother law for the time being in force from acquiring, having inhis possession or carrying any arms or ammunition, or (2) to beof unsound mind, or (3) to be for any reason unfit for a licenceunder this Act; or (ii) where the licensing authority deems itnecessary for the security of the public peace or for publicsafety to refuse to grant such licence. Sub-section (2) states https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ that the licensing authority shall not refuse to grant anylicence to any person merely on the ground that such person doesnot own or possess sufficient property and Sub-section (3), wherethe licensing authority refuses to grant a licence to any personit shall record in writing the reasons for such refusal andfurnish to that person on demand a brief statement of the sameunless in any case the licensing authority is of the opinion thatit will not be in the public interest to furnish such statement.13.A perusal of the records would reveal that the secondrespondent/the licensing authority has called for reports fromthe nearest police station; the Tahsildar, Sankari; RevenueDivisional Officer, Sankari and the Superintendent of Police,Salem. The Tahsildar, Sankari, in his Report inK.Dis/3420/2004/J dated 19.11.2004, has rejected the request ofthe petitioner for gun licence, as there are so many facilitiesavailable viz., Credit Card, ATM, Demand Drafts, Transfer ofMoney etc. from one account to another. The RDO, Sankari, in hisreport in L.Dis.No.4605/2004 dated 17.01.2005 has re-directed theTahsildar Report and rejected the petitioner's request forissuance of Gun Licence (Revolver). The Superintendent ofPolice, Salem, in his report in ROC G1/20591/2004 dated17.01.2005, has stated that there are so many persons similar tothe petitioner during various businesses and the petitioner hasnot mentioned any specific incident faced by him for his lifedanger. As there are no complaints filed by him relating toinsecurity of his life, the Superintendent of Police, Salem hasalso rejected his request. As the said authorities have notrecommended for granting licence, the second respondent,accepting their reports, rejected the request of the petitionerand refused to grant licence to the petitioner.14. A reading of the order of the second respondent makes itcrystal clear that except to state that as there are norecommendations by the Tahsildar, RDO and Superintendent ofPolice, no other reason has been adduced for refusing to grantthe licence. The said order though appears to have been passedwith non-application of mind without assigning any reasons, theappellate authority, namely, Principal Secretary/Commissioner ofRevenue Administration, on the appeal filed by the petitioneragainst the order of the second respondent/licensing authority,after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner on02.11.2009 and on hearing the arguments of the counsel for thepetitioner, by his order dated 25.11.2009, rejected the appeal,stating that though the petitioner applied for a revolver licencefor self protection, the Superintendent of Police, Salem, did notrecommend for grant of licence; that the petitioner did not faceany threat to his life or property at any point of time; that theexistence of serious threat to life and property and the pressing https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ necessity for keeping a weapon for effective protection have notbeen made out and that in the absence of any proof of threatperception to life and property, the request of the petitionerfor gun licence for self protection does not appear to begenuine.15. In view of the merger of the original authority's orderwith that of the appellate authority and the appellate authorityhaving gone into each and every factor for consideration withregard to the claim of the petitioner for grant of licence andconfirmed the order of the original authority, even if theoriginal authority's order has resulted in rejection of therequest of the petitioner for gun licence based on the reports ofthe revenue and police officials, the reasoning of the appellateauthority would give a clear position that the order of theoriginal authority has been rightly analysed by the appellateauthority before passing the impugned order. 16. Since the petitioner did not face any threat to his lifeor property at any point of time so also there was no pressingnecessity for keeping a weapon for effective protection and inthe absence of any proof of threat perception to life andproperty, the request of the petitioner for gun licence for selfprotection, in my considered opinion, was rightly rejected by theappellate authority/first respondent, confirming the order of thelicensing authority/second respondent. In addition, theingredients for grant of licence under Section 13 and refusal togrant licence under Section 14 are followed by the appellateauthority, by giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitionerand also hearing the arguments of the counsel for the petitioneras well as following the procedure contemplated under Section 13(2A) of the Act.17.Therefore, finding no need to interfere with the ordersof the authorities below, this Writ Petition is dismissed. Nocosts. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrardixit https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To :1.The Principal Secretary/Commissioner of Revenue Administration,Disaster Manager and Mitigation Department,Ezhilagam, Chepauk,Chennai – 6.2.The District Magistrate andDistrict Collector,Salem District,Salem.+1cc to M/s. N.Manokaran, Advocate Sr 40340MP(CO)km/25.7. W.P.No.2366 of 2011