IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 16TH DECEMBER 2011 / 25TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 32001 of 2011(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- WAYANAD FIRE WORKS DEALERS ASSOCIATION SULTHAN BATTERY REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY K P MOHAMMED ALI, KARADIPARAMBIL HOUSE, TAVARIMALA PO, AMBALAVAYAL PANCHAYAT WAYANAD. BY ADV. SRI.M.R.SASITH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE (DISTRICT COLLECTOR) KALPATTA, WAYANAD. 2. THE TAHSILDAR TAHSILDAR OFFICE SULTHAN BATHERY, WAYANAD. 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, SULTHAN BATHERY WAYANAD. GP SRI.MOHAMMED SHAH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 32001 of 2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS EXT.P1TRUE COPY OF THE LICENSE OF ONE MEMBER. EXT.P2TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENT. /true copy/ P.A. To Judge ANTONY DOMINIC, J ....................................................... W.P.(C).32001/2011 .............................................. Dated this the 16th day of December, 2011 JUDGMENT Petitioner is an Association of persons having licences under the Explosives Rules for the sale of Fire works. According to them, licence issued by their members, is being periodically renewed for one year each. It is stated that in some districts in the State, licences are renewed for five years each and therefore respondents should be directed to renew the licence of their members also for five year period each. In support, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on Rule 112 of the Explosives Rules, 2008. 2. Heard the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 3. According to the learned Government Pleader, considering the peculiarities of Wayanad District, it was the practice of the Department to renew licence for one year period each so that, there will be a close monitoring of the activities of the licence. It is stated that it was therefore, that licence cannot be renewed as sought for by the petitioner. W.P.(C).32001/11 2 4. Insofar as Rule 112 of the Explosives Rules is concerned, that Rule only prescribe that licence can be granted at a time for a maximum period of five years. This Rule does not mean that the licence should always be renewed or granted for five years in one Block. 5. Therefore, considering the peculiarities of the situation, if the authorities decide to grant renewal for a lesser period, such as one year, in the absence of anything arbitrary in such decision, this Court, exercising its supervisory power, will not be justified in interfering with such a bona fide decision. In this case, there is no material whatsoever to think that such a decision restricting the period of licence to one year is vitiated for any such reason. In such circumstances, I do not find any illegality in the act of the respondents warranting interference or directing consideration of the representation made by the petitioner. Writ petition is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs