IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR SATURDAY, THE 30TH JANUARY 2010 / 10TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 27744 of 2009(K) -------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. K.PURUSHOTHAMAN, SABU NIVAS, AYIRUKUZHY P.O.,KADAKKAL VIA, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 2. P.SABU, S/O.K.PURUSHOTHAMAN, SABU NIVAS, AYIRUKUZHY P.O., KADAKKAL VIA, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.K.CHANDRAMOHAN DAS RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOME (F) DEPARTMENT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, KOLLAM. 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOLLAM. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM. 5. THE DEPUTY CHIEF CONTROLLER OF EXPLOSIVES, ERNAKULAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI.K.RAMESH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 27744 of 2009(K) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:- EXHIBIT P1 : Proceedings bearing No.M7-12170/06 K.Dis dtd.1/12/2006 issued by the 2nd respondent. EXHIBIT P2 : Proceedings dtd.18/10/2006 issued by the 2nd respondent. EXHIBIT P3 : Order bearing No.M7-11368/08 dtd.4/12/2008 issued by the 2nd respondent. EXHIBIT P4 : Order bearing No.M7-11370/08 dtd.4/12/2008 issued by the 2nd respondent. EXHIBIT P5 : Judgment in C.C.No.1988/2008 dtd.1/8/2009. EXHIBIT P6 : Communication bearing No.5371/F1/09 Home dtd.23/8/2009 issued by the 1st respondent. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: Nil True copy P.A. to Judge T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ------------------------------------------------ W.P.(C)No.27744 of 2009 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 30th day of January, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioners are aggrieved by the rejection of the application for grant of Explosive Licence. The short facts for the disposal of the case are the following:- 2. The first petitioner was issued with licence No.6/90 QLN dated 4.4.1990 in Form No.20 for manufacturing of one kilo gram of gun powder and five kilo grams fire works by the second respondent Additional District Magistrate. Ext.P1 is the copy of the proceedings renewing the licence up to 31.3.2008. The second respondent, who is the son of the first petitioner, was also granted a licence as No.1/2006 dated 2/2/2006 in Form No.24 to possess and sell fireworks from a shop not exceeding 50 kilo grams of class 7 Division 2 Sub division 2 and 400 Kilograms of Class 7 Division 2 Sub Division 1. 3. Ext.P2 is the copy of the same. They applied for renewal of the licence and during the pendancy of the application for renewal the local police conducted an inspection they seized the explosives, which were in his possession. The petitioners were continuing the operation on the ground that the W.P.(C)No.27744 of 2009 2 deeming clause under Rule 165(3) will apply until the licence is renewed. 4. Aggrieved by the delay in granting the renewal, the petitioner had approached this Hon'ble Court by filing W.P.(C) No.31114/2008 wherein a direction was issued to the second respondent to dispose of the applications for renewal within three weeks. But the applications were rejected by Ext.P3 stating that the police report is against them. It is evident from Ext.P3 that a crime case No.534/08 was registered against the applicant’s son. Ext.P4 is the order passed by the second respondent rejecting the application for renewal submitted by the second petitioner. 5. It is the case of the petitioners that the second petitioner was acquitted from the said criminal cases, going by Ext.P5 judgment the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Kottarakara. In the meanwhile Ext.P4 was under challenge in an appeal before the 1st respondent, which also stands rejected by Ext.P6. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the light of the acquittal as per Ext.P5 the report now relied upon that they are involved in criminal cases cannot be a basis W.P.(C)No.27744 of 2009 3 for not renewing the licence. My attention was drawn into the details of Ext.P5 judgment. Crime was registered under Section 9(B) (1) (b) of Explosive Act and they were acquitted by learned Magistrate after trial. The second petitioner was the accused therein. 7. Therefore the learned counsel for the petitioner seek for a re-consideration of the matter in the light of Ext.P5 judgment. The second respondent will re-consider the matter expeditiously in the light of Ext.P5 judgment. While re- considering the application it is open to the second respondent to call for a fresh report from the Superintendent of Police. The question whether petitioners are involved in any other criminal cases will also be examined. If the second respondent is satisfied, that the licence can be renewed depending upon the various reports including Police reports and after examining Ext.P5 judgment appropriate orders will be passed within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. No costs. T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE skj