IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 8TH JULY 2008 / 17TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 32279 of 2007(P) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER : ------------------ BENOY JACOB, KANINATH HOUSE, PUNNATHURA EAST P.O., KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.A.K.HARIDAS RESPONDENTS : ---------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM DIST. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM DIST. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.N.SUDHA DEVI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 32279 of 2007(P) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS : EXT.P1:- TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION ALONG WITH THE SITE PLAN DATED 09.01.2006 EXT.P2:- TRUE COPY OF THE RENT AGREEMENT ON 29.11.2005 EXT.P3:- TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOTTAYAM EXT.P4:- TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY TAHSILDAR, KOTTAYAM DATED 27.11.2006 EXT.P5:- TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF ASSISTANT DIVISIONAL OFFICER, FIRE AND RESCUE SERVICES, KOTTAYAM DATED 04.12.2006 EXT.P6:- TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 26.09.2007 EXT.P7:- TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT OF O.S.NO.58/07 PENDING BEFORE MUNSIFF'S COURT, KOTTAYAM -TRUE COPY- P.A. TO JUDGE pac S.SIRI JAGAN, J ============== W.P.(C).No. 32279 OF 2008 ==================== Dated this the 8th day of July, 2008. J U D G M E N T The petitioner applied for a licence for manufacture of explosives in the appropriate form in Schedule V of Explosives Rules, on 9.1.2006, by Ext.P1 application. The same is not being considered on the ground that a suit namely, O.S.No.58/2007 filed by four residents of the locality against the petitioner and three others for injunction restraining them from conducting the said activity is pending. According to the petitioner, the properties mentioned in that suit and the properties for which the licence has been requested, are different and his property situates at a distance of 750 meters apart. However, the 2nd respondent by Ext.P6 informed the petitioner that the application for licence would be considered only after the disposal of the suit. The petitioner therefore filed this writ petition seeking the following relief: To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction, directing the 2nd respondent to issue licence to the petitioner as per Ext.P1 application immediately. W.P.(C).No. 32279 OF 2008 2 2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also. 3. In so far as there is no injunction against the respondents in processing the application for licence submitted by the petitioner, in the suit stated to be pending, I do not think that the 2nd respondent can put off considering the petitioner's application on the ground of pendency of the suit. Accordingly, there would be a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P1 application submitted by the petitioner after conducting necessary enquiry and inspection, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above. S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE bkn/-