IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND APRIL 2008 / 13TH CHAITHRA 1930 W.P(C).No. 10069 of 2008(W) ----------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- C.H. MUHAMMED KUNHI, MANAGING PARTNER BEE BEE FIRE WORKS, BUILDING NO.VIII 779/A ELAYAVOOR VILLAGE, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI. P.C.IYPE SRI. GEORGE MECHERIL RESPONDENT: --------------- THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, COLLECTORATE, KANNUR. BY GOVT. PLEADER, SRI.I.V. PRAMOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 10069 OF 2008 W ==================== Dated this the 2nd day of April, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner was granted licence under the Explosives Act, 1884. As the period of licence was expiring on 31/3/2007, petitioner applied for its renewal, but however was carrying on the business on the strength of the deemed extension as provided for under Rule 165(3) of the Explosives Rules. It is stated that a case was registered against him and thereafter he was issued Ext.P3 show cause notice calling upon the petitioner to show cause why the licence should not be cancelled. Petitioner filed Ext.P4 reply on 10/7/07. According to the petitioner nothing further was heard, but however, Ext.P5 order dated 11/3/2008 was issued preventing the petitioner from continuing the business. It is challenging Ext.P5 that this writ petition has been filed. 2. While by Ext.P3, petitioner was called upon to show cause why licence should not be cancelled, Ext.P5 shows that licence has not been renewed from 01/04/2006. It is also stated that in view of the pendency of criminal cases, until the licence is renewed, petitioner should not continue the business. 3. In my view the terms of Ext.P5 is clearly contradictory to Rule WPC 10069/08 :2 : l65(3) of the Explosives Rules which reads as under: 165(3) Every application for the renewal of a licence shall be made so as to reach the licensing authority or the authority empowered to renew the licence at least 30 days before the date on which the licence expired, and if the application is so made, the licence shall be deemed to be in force until such date as the licensing authority renews the licence or until an intimation that the renewal of the licence is refused has been communicated to the applicant. A reading of this provision shows that once an application is made before 30 days of expiry of licence, licence shall be deemed to be in force until such date the licensing authority renews the licence or until an intimation that the licence has been refused is given to the applicant. In this case, as admitted in Ext.P5 itself, though applications for renewal have been made, licence has neither been renewed nor has it been refused. In view of this, until orders are passed on the applications made by the petitioner in 2007 and 2008, petitioner is entitled to continue. Ext.P5 also does not indicate a case of suspension of licence, which also is possible in terms of Rules 167 and 168 of the Rules. In such circumstances, Ext.P5 is to be quashed and I hold that till orders are passed on the applications made by the petitioner for renewal of his licence, he is entitled to continue the business. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC,JUDGE. Rp