IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 4TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 13TH KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 27950 of 2011(P) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- THANKARAJAN, AGED 64 YEARS S/O.JOSEPH, VALLANINNA PUTHEN VEEDU THIRUPURAM PO, NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADVS. SRI.R.T.PRADEEP SRI.SREEKANTH S.NAIR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, 'COLLECTORATE, KUDAPPANAKUNNU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 001. 2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE POOVAR – 691 625. 3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE POOVAR POLICE STATION, POOVAR – 691 625. BY SR.GOVT.PLEADER SMT.M.J.RAJASREE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: AV WPC.NO.27950/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS : EXT.P1: COPY OF THE LICENCE FOR MANUFACTURE OF 15 KGS.OF GUN POWDER W.E.F 31.3.1995 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE FIR DT.29.6.2009 IN CRIME NO.132/2009 OF POOVAR POLICE STATION. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DT.14.8.2009 IN WPC.NO.22385/09 EXT.P4: COPY OF THE ORDER DT.17.8.2009 BY A.D.M. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE APPEAL DT.21.8.2009 FILED BEFORE THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER BY PETITIONER. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE ORDER OF STAY DT.16.9.2009 IN EXT.P5. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT.25.2.2010 IN WPC.37639/2009. EXT.P8: COPY OF THE ORDER DT.27.2.2010 BY LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER. EXT.P9: COPY OF THE REPORT OF TAHSILDAR DT.30.3.2011. EXT.P10 : COPY OF THE REPORT OF 2ND RESPONDENT DT.30.3.2011. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A TO JUDGE AV ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 27950 of 2011 P ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 4th day of November, 2011 J U D G M E N T ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Petitioner was having an explosive licence for the manufacture of 15 Kg of gunpowder at a time. The licence was valid till 31.03.2009. He applied for renewal of the licence, which was rejected by the first respondent as per Ext.P4 order dated 17.08.2009. Against this order, he filed Ext.P5 appeal. The appellate authority, the Land Revenue Commissioner, disposed of the appeal by Ext.P8 order, holding that the first respondent rejected the application of the petitioner without conducting a proper enquiry. On this basis, the case was remanded back to the first respondent for fresh disposal. On remanding the matter as above, the first respondent obtained reports from the Tahsildar and the Circle Inspector of Police and the reports submitted are Exts.P9 and P10. 2. Case of the petitioner is that his application for W.P.(C) No.27950/2011 : 2 : renewal of licence is still pending consideration of the first respondent and that until the licence is renewed or a decision on his application is communicated, he is entitled to have a deemed licence in terms of Rule 112(5) of the Explosive Rules, 2008. 3. I have considered the submissions made. Rule 112(5) of the Rules reads thus:- “R.112(5). If the application for renewal reaches the renewing or licensing authority on or before the date of expiry, the licence shall be deemed to be in force until such date as the licensing authority renews the licence or until an intimation that the renewal of the licence is refused has been communicated to the applicant.” 4. Reading of Ext.P4 order shows that the application for renewal made by the petitioner was rejected because of the objection raised by the Tahsildar and the police. This order was set aside by the appellate authority in Ext.P8 order and the case was remanded for fresh consideration. Specific W.P.(C) No.27950/2011 : 3 : contention of the petitioner is that the first respondent has not passed fresh orders in the matter. If this is factually correct, the position which obtains now is that the application of the petitioner for renewal of the licence is pending consideration of the first respondent. If that be so, petitioner is entitled to the benefit of Rule 112(5). 5. Taking note of this factual position and considering the case of the petitioner that despite this position, respondents 2 and 3 are preventing him from carrying on his work, I direct that if the application for renewal of licence made by the petitioner is pending before the first respondent, the petitioner shall be permitted to carry on his activities on the strength of Ext.P1 licence, until the licence is renewed or his application for renewal is rejected. Clarifying the position as above, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) aks/04/11