IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 7TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 29313 of 2010(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- 1. ANISH GEORGE, S/O.GEORGE, AGED 32 YEARS, RESIDING AT NELLIKUNNEL HOUSE, MARIYAPURAM KARA, THANKAMANY VILLAGE, UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK. 2. P.R.BABU, S/O.RAMAN, AGED 48 YEARS, RESIDING AT PANICKUNNEL HOUSE, MARIYAPURAM KARA, THANKAMANY VILLAGE, UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.A.SHAFEEK (KAYAMKULAM) RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF CONTROLLER OF EXPLOSIVES, 5TH FLOOR, A BLOCK, CGO COMPLEX, SEMINARY HILLS, NAGPUR. 2. THE JOINT CHIEF CONTROLLER OF EXPLOSIVES, 140, MARSHAL ROAD, EGMORE, CHENNAI, TAMIL NADU. 3. THE DEPUTY CHIEF CONTROLLER OF EXPLOSIVES, C2, 3RD FLOOR, KENDREEYA BHAVAN, KAKKANADU, ERNAKULAM. 4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, IDUKKI. 5. M/S.CMJ GRANITES, BUILDING NO.8215, MARIYAPURAM KARA, MARIYAPURAM P.O., THANKAMANY VILLAGE, IDUKKI DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, SEBASTIAN C.JACOB. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIMKHAN, ASG SMT.K.K.RAZIYA, ACGC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 29313 OF 2010 (L) ===================== Dated this the 29th day of September, 2010 J U D G M E N T The grievance of the petitioners is that in order to get over Ext.P2 interim order passed by the Civil Court, the 5th respondent made an application to the respondents for the issue of an explosive licence. Petitioners state that objecting to the grant of licence, though they have filed representations, without considering this complaint, the licence is likely to be granted. It is with this grievance, the writ petition is filed. 2. Standing counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 3 submits that though application has been received, orders have not been passed. 3. If as stated, orders have not still been passed by the 2nd respondent, before whom petitioners claim to have filed Ext.P5, there is no reason why the objections raised by the petitioners in Ext.P5 also shall be considered. In that view of the matter, I direct the petitioners to produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of this writ petition before the 2nd respondent, who shall consider Ext.P5 representation filed by the petitioners WPC No. 29313/10 :2 : also as and when orders on the application made by the 5th respondent is passed. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp