IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 20TH DECEMBER 2011 / 29TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 18789 of 2011(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- G. SASI, AGED 60 YEARS, S/O. GOVINDAN RESIDING AT T.C 52/771, PUTHUVAL PUTHEN VEEDU, POOZHIKUNNU ESTATE.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 019. BY ADV. SRI.R.S.KALKURA SRI.M.S.KALESH SRI.HARISH GOPINATH SRI.V.VINAY MENON RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 043. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 043. 3. THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 043. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 043. GOVT.PLEADER SMT.SANJEETHA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.18789/11 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE LICENCE NO.4/24/2004 VALID TILL 31.3.2005 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT 14.3.11. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 18789 OF 2011 ===================== Dated this the 20th day of December, 2011 J U D G M E N T What is under challenge in this writ petition is Ext.P2 order passed by the 3rd respondent cancelling Ext.P1 licence bearing No.4/24/2004 issued under the provisions of the Explosives Rules. The reason mentioned in Ext.P2 is that, his wife was also a licencee and that his wife has violated the provisions of the Explosives Act and the Rules. This ground is reiterated by the learned Government Pleader, who has obtained instructions in the matter. 2. The fact that the petitioner's wife was a licencee under the Explosives Act and the Rules is not a matter of dispute. It is also a fact that following an accident that occurred in her manufacturing unit, extensive damage was caused to the properties and injury was also caused to a person. However, no provision of the Explosives Act and the Rules have been shown to me enabling the 3rd respondent to order cancellation of the petitioner's licence for the reason that his wife is involved in a criminal case alleging violation of the Explosives Act and the WPC No.18789/11 :2 : Rules. There is also nothing mentioned in Ext.P2 indicating the involvement of the petitioner in the offence alleged against the petitioner. In such circumstances, cancellation of the licence issued to the petitioner (Ext.P1) as per Ext.P2 cannot be justified. For that reason, I quash Ext.P2. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp