IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 18TH KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 29567 of 2011(U) ------------------------------------ PETITIONERS: ------------------- 1. A.G.RAVINDRAN, S/O.JAGADEESAN, AGED 67 YEARS. 2. A.R.SREEJITH, S/O.A.G.RAVINDRAN, AGED 37 YEARS. BOTH ARE RESIDING AT ALAYIL HOUSE, S.N PURAM, KOTHAPARAMBU P.O, KODUNGALLUR PIN-680 668. BY ADV. SRI.S.R.DAYANANDA PRABHU RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD, ROUND NORTH, THRISSUR REP.BY ITS SECRETARY. 680 001. 2. SPECIAL DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER COCHIN DEVASWOM BAORD, ROUND NORTH, TRISSUR-680 001. 3. THIRUVANCHIKULAM GROUP ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,THIRUVANCHIKULAM DEVASWOM OFFICE, KODUNGALLUR-680 664. 4. THE DEPUTY CHEIF CONTROLLER OF EXPLOSIVES (GOVERNMENT OF INDIA), OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY CHIEF CONTROLLER OF EXPLOSIVES,KENDRIYA BHAVAN, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM COCHIN KERALA 682 037. BY ADV. SRI.N.RAGHURAJ FOR R1-3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN WPC 29567/2011 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT. P1 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DT. 10.3.10 ISSUED BY DEVASWOM MANAGER EXT. P2 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DT. 21.10.2011 ISSUED BY SECOND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER EXT. P3 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DT. 3.11.2010 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT EXT. P4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT. 18.11.2011 IN WPC 34576/2010 BY HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA EXT. P5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT. 23.2.2010 IN WPC 3621/2010 BY HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA EXT. P6 TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION DT. 10.3.2010 TO THE FOURTH RESPONDENT FOR ISSUE OF SHOT FIRER'S PERMIT EXT. P7 TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION DT. 10.3.2003 SUBMITTED BY FIRST PETITIONER IN FAVOUR OF SECOND PETITIONER EXT. P8 TRUE COPY OF LETTERDT. 11.10.2011 ISSUED BY FOURTH RESPONDENT TO THE SECOND PETITIONER EXT. P9 TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DT. 28.10.2011 TO EXT. P2 COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT /TRUE COPY/ THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JJ. ----------------------------------- W.P(C).No.29567 OF 2011 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 9th day of November, 2011 JUDGMENT Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan,J. 1. The first petitioner, now aged 67 years, had obtained Exts.P4 and P5 judgments in connection with the auctioning out of the vedivazhipadu in two temples under the Cochin Devaswom Board. Now, he says that he intends to compete in the auction for the year 2012 for Thiruvanchikulam Mahadeva Temple. Admittedly, on ground of age, he is not eligible. 2.Ext.P3 is the notification regarding that temple for the previous year. The petitioners’ learned counsel has a copy of the notification for the current year. It is similarly worded to Ext.P3 which contains a provision that the explosive licence has to be shown to the Board authorities before the auction. WPC.29567/11 2 3.The auction is stated to be listed tomorrow and the time fixed for submission of applications and licence is 5 p.m., today. Therefore, any person desirous of participating in the auction can do so since there is sufficient time for it. 4.But, the first petitioner's case is that since he did not produce the licence in terms of Exts.P4 and P5 judgments, the Devaswom Commissioner has issued Ext.P2 order, excluding him from the process of selection. He wants us to say that his son, the second petitioner, has, by today, obtained licence and he should be permitted to join the first petitioner as a licence holder under him and that the first petitioner may go as a worker. 5.To say the least, we are not impressed. We are dealing with dangerous substances in the form of explosives. The laws governing the explosives; grant of licence etc. are matters regulated by the relevant laws. They have to be strictly construed. The CDB cannot be mulcted with the WPC.29567/11 3 responsibility of the consequences of any situation that may arise when, in connection with some contract, the auctioneer is the father and the holder of the explosives' licence is the son. Apart from the commercial interest of the petitioners, we do not find any ground to issue any of the directions as sought for. 6.The writ petition fails. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. Sd/- K. VINOD CHANDRAN, Judge. kkb.10/11.