IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 8TH MARCH 2011 / 17TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 5640 of 2011(D) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- PRASANNAN, AGED 56 YEARS, S/O.RAMAKRISHNAN, KALAVANPARAYIL HOUSE, WARD NO.16, PALLIPPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.NOBLE MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, ALAPPUZHA. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA. 3. THE DISTRICT POLICE SUPERINTENDENT, ALAPPUZHA. 4. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 5. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHERTHALA. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 5640 OF 2011 ===================== Dated this the 8th day of March, 2011 J U D G M E N T According to the petitioner, in terms of the provisions contained in the Explosive Rules, 2008 as amended, he submitted application on 24/2/2010. Although the petitioner has not produced copy of the application form, he has produced as Ext.P4, the chalan receipt evidencing payment of fee for such application. It is submitted that the application was not considered, and therefore, he submitted Ext.P6 representation. Even on Ext.P6, there was no response. It is complaining of the above, this writ petition is filed. 2. If as stated by the petitioner, the 2nd respondent has received a valid and proper application from the petitioner and if such an application is pending, it is necessary that the 2nd respondent should take action. This the 2nd respondent shall do within 6 weeks of production of a copy of this judgment along with a copy of this writ petition. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp