IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI TUESDAY, THE 4TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 13TH KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 13101 of 2008(I) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- P.P.UDAYASANKAR, S/O.P.BHASKARAN, RESIDING AT SANGEETH, PUTHIYANGADI, CALICUT. BY ADV. SRI.V.V.SURENDRAN SRI.P.A.HARISH RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOZHIKODE. 2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE (ADM), KOZHIKODE. 3. THE DEPUTY CHIEF CONTROLLER OF EXPLOSIVES, KENDRIYA BHAVAN, BLOCK C-2, 3RD FLOOR, CSEZ P.O., KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.TOJAN J.VATHIKULAM, ADDL.CGSC FOR R3 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.M.R.SREELATHA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/11/2008 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.13101/2008 APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE LICENSE ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY CHIEF CONTROLLER OF EXPLOSIE DT. 3.3.08. P2:- COPY OF THE SKETCH OF THE RPEMISES. P3;- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC. 8314/08 DT. 24.3.08. P4:- COPY OF THE LICENSE ISSUED BY THE KOZHIKODE CORPORATION. ANNEXURE R1(a):- CIRUCULAR NO.E2(1) FIRE WORKS DT. 9.4.07 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY CHIEF CONTROLLER OF EXPLOSIVES. ANNEXURE R1(b):- COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING CONDUCTED ON 11.2.2008 AND 25.2.08 BY THE A.D.M. ANNEXURE R1(c):- COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF POLCIE DT. 7.4.08. ANNEXURE R1(d):- COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED IN CCC. 619/08. ANNEXURE R1(e):- COPY OF THE ORDER IN CCC. 619/08. /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE tss V. GIRI, J. ------------------------------- WP(C).NO. 13101 of 2008 --------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of November, 2008. JUDGMENT The petitioner carries on the business of sale of fire works in the premises which belong to him on the strength of a licence Ext.P1 issued in that regard and renewed from time to time. Ext.P1 has been issued by the third respondent Deputy Chief Controller of Explosives and it enables the petitioner to possess and sell the noted quantity of fire works at Door No.39/969 in Puthiyangadi, Calicut. According to the petitioner, his premises are situated in the outskirts of the Kozhikode Corporation about 500 meters away from the Elathoor Panchayat. Apart from the licence issued under the Explosives Act and Rules, the petitioner has the required licence from the concerned Local Authority. He had a trade licence in that regard till 31.3.2008 but the licence was not renewed beyond the said period. He therefore approached this court in WPC.No.8314/2008. The same was disposed of by Ext.P3 judgment requiring the Corporation to renew the licence after conducting local inspection of the WPC.13101 /2008 2 petitioner's premises and verifying whether the petitioner's shop is situated in a congested area. The licence was renewed for the period thereafter as evidenced by Ext.P4. But within a few days of the commencement of the sale consequent upon the renewal, as evidenced by Ext.P4, the District Administration, represented by respondents 1 and 2 forcibly closed the petitioner's shop. This has been done on the premise that the petitioner's shop is situated in a congested area and taking note of the observations made by this court in WPC.No.9443/2008. This writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondents to refrain from interfering with the petitioner in conducting business in a shop on the strength of Ext.P1 licence. 2. A counter affidavit has been filed by respondents 1 and 2 and a statement has been filed on behalf of the third respondent. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. 3. No doubt the sale of fire works requires strict adherence to the provisions of law under which licence is granted and the conditions of licence as well. But as is evident from the statement of the third respondent, he is the licensing authority of WPC.13101 /2008 3 the petitioner, the District Magistrate is also a licensing authority under the Explosives Act and Rules for a lesser quantity of explosives. The District Collector as the head of the Administration of the State could seek a restriction on the sale of the fire works in public interest. Obviously there is nothing wrong in such measures being taken by the District Collector. But in the present case the petitioner had a license as Ext.P1 and he is entitled to carry on trade on the strength of Ext.P1 licence. If the District administration finds that the place where the petitioner carries on trade is a congested area, it is open to them to seek either suspension of the licence or imposition of additional conditions. But both the actions can only be done by the licensing authority viz. the third respondent and it seems from Ext.P1 that the licence is valid up to 31.3.2010. If that be so, then there cannot be a restraint on the petitioner carrying on his trade in accordance with the conditions in Ext.P1 as long as the same is in force. If the District Administration still feels there has to be a restriction on the petitioner's trading activities, the third respondent shall do the needful after hearing the petitioner. 4. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of directing WPC.13101 /2008 4 respondents 1 and 2 to refrain from interfering with the petitioner carrying on trade in fire work on the strength of Ext.P1 and strictly subject to the conditions imposed. If respondents 1 and 2 are of the opinion either taking note of the judgment of this court in WPC.No.9443/2008 or otherwise that the petitioner carries on trade in a congested area and therefore this is not in public interest, they are entitled to move the third respondent for appropriate variations in Ext.P1 licence. If any such application is moved by respondents 1 and 2 before the third respondent, then the third respondent shall take a decision on the same, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the application , after notice to the petitioner as well. V. GIRI, JUDGE. Pmn/ WPC.13101 /2008 5