IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI THURSDAY, THE 13TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 22ND KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 31091 of 2008(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- THOMAS.N.A., AGED 44 YEARS, S/O.N.E.ABRAHAM, PROPRIETOR, M/S.NOBEL EXPLOSIVES, KADAYIRUPPU P.O., KOLANCHERY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JOBI JOSE KONDODY RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE CHIEF CONTROLLER OF EXPLOSIVES, PETROLEUM AND EXPLOSIVES SAFETY ORGANISATION, A BLOCK, 5TH FLOOR, CGO COMPLEX, SEMINARY HILLS, NAGPUR 440006, MAHARASHTRA. 2. THE JOINT CHIEF CONTROLLER OF EXPLOSIVES PETROLEUM AND EXPLOSIVES SAFETY ORGANISATION, 140, RUKMINI LAKSHMIPATHI SALAI, EGMORE, CHENNAI-8. 3. THE DEPUTY CHIEF CONTROLLER OF EXPLOSIVES, PETROLEUM AND EXPLOSIVES SAFETY ORGANISATION, KENDRIYA BHAVAN, BLOCK C2, 3RD FLOOR, CSEZ P.O., KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI 682037. ADV. SRI.K.SANIL KUMAR, ADDL.CGSC FOR R SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR, ASG THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J ------------------- W.P.(C).31091/2008 -------------------- Dated this the 13th day of November, 2008 JUDGMENT A licence held by the petitioner under the Explosives Rules, was suspended by Ext.P7 order passed by the first respondent inter alia on the allegation that the petitioner was involved in the contravention of several conditions under which the licence was issued. In the statement filed by the respondents, a reference is made to the fact that a sufficiently large quantity of explosives was being transported in a van registered with the petitioner and that the explosives were seized by the police and shifted to Ollur Police Station. There is a dispute as to whether the police had seized the explosives or whether, pursuant to an accident in which the vehicle was involved, it was shifted to the police station. Same is not the subject matter for enquiry in this writ petition. But what has to be noted is that the explosives were consigned to one Afeez, one Jaison and Jose who are also stated to be licensees under the W.P.(C).31091/2008 2 Explosives Rules. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the alleged consignees have given a statement denying their involvement in the transaction. 2. Petitioner has filed Ext.P8, a detailed representation, seeking a revocation of Ext.P7 order of suspension. Since Ext.P7 is stated to be interim in character, Ext.P8 representation seeking a revocation of the same is maintainable before the same authority. 3. Having heard Mr.Jobi Jose Kondody, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Sanilkumar, CGSC, I am of the view that Ext.P8 should be considered by the first respondent. 4. In the result, writ petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to consider Ext.P8 as an application for revocation of suspension effected under Ext.P7 and pass orders thereon, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Notice W.P.(C).31091/2008 3 shall be given by the first respondent, in this regard, to the petitioner as also to the persons whom the petitioner describes as consignees, which was being transported as per Exts.P2 to P4. Copy of the writ petition along with the copy of judgment shall be produced before the first respondent by the petitioner. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs