IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 29TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 7TH ASWINA 1933 WP(C).No. 25870 of 2011(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.M.STONE CRUSHER, REP.BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, ANSAR C,KARAYATHUMCHAL, NEDIYANGA AMSOM,SREEKANDAPURAM PANCHAYATH, KANNUR DISTRICT,PIN 670 631. BY ADV. SRI.K.V.SOHAN SMT.SREEJA SOHAN.K. SRI.GEORGE JOSEPH PULIMOOTTIL SRI.N.N.ARUN BECHU SRI.K.DILIP SRI.ROVIN RODRIGUES RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR PIN 670 001. 2. THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, KANNUR,PIN 670 001. 3. THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, KANNUR PIN 670 001. 4. THE DEPUTY INSEPCTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, KANNUR,PIN 670 001. BY SR.GOVT.PLEADER, SMT.M.J.RAJASHREE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: SU WPC.NO.25870/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBIT: P1: COPY OF THE RESOLUTION NO.135/2009 DT.8-10-2009 PASSED BY SREEKANDAPURAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH. P2: COPY OF THE PERMIT GRANTED BY THE MINING AND GEOLOGY DEPARTMENT FOR CONDUCT OF QUARRY DT.14-08-2009. P3: COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR GRANT OF EXPLOSIVE LICENSE IN FORM AE-3,DT.29-09-2010. P4: COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE CATHOLIC SYRIAN BANK UNDER SECTION 13(2) OF THE SECURITISATION ACT AGAINST THE PETITIONER, DT.28-12-2010. P5: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P 20275/2011 DT.26-7-2011. P6: COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,SREEKANDAPURAM,DT.9-8-2011. P7: COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT ALONG WITH THE STATEMENT OF THE PERSONS RESIDING NEAR THE PROPOSED UNIT,28-2-2011. P8: COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED THE ASSISTANT DIVISIONAL OFFICER, FIRE AND RESCUE, DT.12-1-2011. P9: COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, KANNUR, DT. 17-6-2011. P10: COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD ROADS DIVISION, KANNUR, DT.11-8-2011. P11: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD AND 4TH RESPONDENT, DT.22-9-2011. RESPONDANT'S EXHIBITS: NIL. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE SU ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 25870 of 2011 G ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 29th day of September, 2011 J U D G M E N T ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ According to the petitioner, pursuant to Exts.P1 and P2, he established a stone crusher unit and a quarry in R.S.No.25/1A of Nediyanga village in Taliparamba Taluk. He submitted Ext.P3 application for grant of an explosive licence. When there was delay in passing orders on the application, petitioner approached this Court and in W.P.(C) No.20275/2011, this Court, by Ext.P5 judgment, directed that orders on the application be expedited. Now, complaint of the petitioner is that, all authorities, except the third respondent, have submitted recommendations in his favour and that the third respondent has submitted Ext.P9 report which reads as under:- “Please refer to the above. The application in respect of Sri.Ansar C., K.M.Store Crusher, Karayathumchal, W.P.(C) No.25870/2011 : 2 : Sreekandapuram for the grant of explosive licence in R.S.No.25/1A of Nediyanga village has been got enquired into. Since there is a chance of misuse of explosive, the applicants for the grant of explosive is not recommended from the security point of view.” 2. It is stated that, on account of the aforesaid report of the third respondent, the first respondent is still keeping Ext.P3 application pending. In the said circumstances, after submitting Ext.P11 representation to the fourth respondent, complaining of Ext.P9, this writ petition has been filed, seeking to direct a fresh enquiry and on the basis of the report so submitted, Ext.P3 application be considered by the first respondent. 3. The sustainability of the said prayer of the petitioner will depend upon the validity of Ext.P9 report submitted by the third respondent. Reading of Ext.P9 report of the third respondent shows that, though he has stated that if licence is granted, there is a chance of misuse of explosive, W.P.(C) No.25870/2011 : 3 : no reason whatsoever has been stated to justify such recommendation. Therefore, this recommendation is laconic and invalid. 4. Therefore, I dispose of this writ petition, directing that on receipt of a copy of this judgment, the third respondent will conduct a fresh enquiry into the matter, submit a fresh recommendation to the first respondent containing reasons for his conclusion and on that basis, the first respondent will pass orders on Ext.P3 application made by the petitioner. It is directed that the third respondent shall conclude this exercise within four weeks from the date of production of a copy of this judgment and on receipt of his recommendation, the first respondent will pass orders within four weeks thereafter. Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment and a copy of the writ petition before respondents 1 and 3 for compliance. Sd/- (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) aks/29/09 // True Copy // P.A. To Judge