IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 14TH JULY 2008 / 23RD ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 18417 of 2008(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ ANISHA,S/O ARAVINDAN, KANJIRAPALLAM HOUSE, MASJID ROAD, VADAKKENCHERRY POST, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SAJAN VARGHEESE K. SRI.LIJU. M.P RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALAKKAD. 2. THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT, MAGISTRATE, PALAKKAD. 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PALAKKAD. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. I.V. PRAMOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C)No.18417 OF 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of July, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner’s grievance in this writ petition is that the petitioner’s application for renewal of explosives licence is not being considered properly by the 1st respondent District Collector on the ground that the petitioner’s father, who had held an explosives licence, is an accused in a criminal case under the Explosives Act itself. The petitioner’s contention is that as a citizen of India he has a right to carry on the business in explosives on his own and renewal of his licence cannot be denied on the ground that his father is an accused in a criminal case. He would further point out that after having issued a licence in his name without reference to his father and renewed the same twice, the District Collector cannot now hold the criminal case against the father as a ground for denying renewal of licence to the petitioner. 2. The learned Government Pleader would submit that the petitioner’s family has a history of negligence in the matter of W.P.(c)No.18417/08 2 dealing with explosives and according to him, the father, who is an accused in a criminal case under the Explosives Act, himself is in charge of the establishment, which is run under the licence issued to the petitioner. He would further submit that as per the report of the police officer, the petitioner is not a person fit to continue the explosives licence, which is a relevant factor in the matter. 3. I am not inclined to go into these questions at this stage. Admittedly, the matter is pending before the District Collector. It is for the District Collector to take a final decision in the matter, after taking into account every aspect of the matter as provided under law. If the order of the District Collector is adverse to petitioner, the remedy of the petitioner lies in filing an appeal against that order. Therefore without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to pursue the matter before the District Collector, this writ petition is dismissed. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE Acd W.P.(c)No.18417/08 3