IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 4TH JUNE 2009 / 14TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 24780 of 2007(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------- S.MUJEEB RAHMAN, S/O.SYED MOHAMMED RAWTHER, THEKKEPURATH UPPUKATTIL HOUSE, ARAKURISSI, MANNARGHAT TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN SRI.PUSHPARAJAN KODOTH SRI.K.JAYESH MOHANKUMAR RESPONDENTS: ---------------- 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF LAND REVENUE, PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING, MUSEUM JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, PALAKKAD. 3. SURESH BABU, S/O.G.SIVARAMAN, KYLAS, VADAKKUMANNA, MANNARKKAD, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SMT.SMITHA SUKUMAR R3 BY ADV. SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON SRI.JIBU P THOMAS SRI.APPU.P.S. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC : 24780/07 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE LICENCE ISSUED AND RENEWED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT FROM THE YEAR 1985 TO 31.3.02. EXT.P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN OP NO.26723/02 DATED 6.4.05. EXT.P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 27.5.06. EXT.P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 23.9.06. EXT.P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 21.3.07. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R3(A) : TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WA NO.1048/05 ON THE FILE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 26.5.05. EXT.R3(B) : TRRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE LANDLORD BEOFE THE SECOND RESPONDENT DATED 13.07.05. EXT.R3(C) : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 31.8.06. /TRUE COPY/ PA TO JUDGE S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No. 24780 OF 2007 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner applied for an explosives licence for manufacture and sale of 24 Kgs of explosives as crackers during festival season. Originally in 1944, the petitioner's grandfather had a licence. On the death of the grandfather, petitioner's father continued the business under another licence in 1965. Petitioner's father also died. Thereafter the petitioner obtained a licence in his name. The same was being renewed in the name of the petitioner up to 2002. When the petitioner submitted an application for renewal of licence in 2003, the 2nd respondent insisted on the petitioner producing a consent letter from the landlord. The petitioner challenged the same before this Court and this Court by Ext.P2 judgment directed the 2nd respondent to consider petitioner's application. In an appeal against Ext.P2 judgment, by Ext.R2(a) judgment, the Division Bench directed that the 3rd respondent also be heard in the matter. The 2nd respondent rejected the application of the petitioner by Ext.P3 order. The petitioner challenged the same before the 1st respondent, who WPC :24780/07 -:2:- dismissed the appeal by Ext.P5 order. The petitioner is challenging Ext.P5 order. 2. The petitioner's contention is that the only ground on which the licence was rejected is that the petitioner has not obtained consent from the landlord. According to the petitioner, for renewal of licence, no consent from the landlord is necessary. The petitioner would submit that, therefore, Exts.P3 and P5 orders are clearly unsustainable. 3. The 3rd respondent would contend that going by the Explosives Act and Rules once the licensee dies, licence stands cancelled and thereafter it cannot be issued in the name of the legal heirs. 4. I am not inclined to consider the contentions of either side, since even otherwise, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned orders. In Ext.P5 order it has been specifically stated that in 2003-04 when the application for renewal of the licence was submitted, the Additional District Magistrate had reported that the building is old and is situated on a crowded street. The petitioner could not satisfy me that, that the said finding is wrong. Explosives are, as is common knowledge, very dangerous and elaborate precautions are necessary WPC :24780/07 -:3:- while issuing licence to deal with explosives. Certainly, licence to store explosives cannot be issued in a crowded street, where causalities in the event of a mishap would be devastating, especially when the building is old. Therefore, I am of opinion that, the licence of the petitioner cannot be renewed in the present premises for that reason. Once I hold that the licence cannot be renewed in that building, then the question regarding no objection from the owner of that building pales into insignificance. 5. The counsel for the petitioner would submit that the 3rd respondent had also filed an application for licence in the same area and if this court holds the above view, that should apply to the 3rd respondent also. Therefore, I have heard the 3rd respondent also on that question. He could not also give me any plausible reason for issue of licence in his name in that area. Therefore, even the 3rd respondent cannot aspire for a licence in that crowded street which I make abundantly clear. In the above circumstances, the writ petition is dismissed with the above observation. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ttb WPC :24780/07 -:4:-