IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR MONDAY, THE 1ST MARCH 2010 / 10TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 5555 of 2010(T) ------------------------------------- O.S. NO.50/1961 OF MUNSIFF COURT, ADOOR. ............ PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ J. SREEMATHY, W/O.MURALEEDHARAN, CHERUPANAMVILA KIZHAKKATHIL, EDAKKADU, KADAMPANAD P.O., PORUVAZHY VILLAGE, KUNNATHOOR, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.B.MOHANLAL RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, KOLLAM. 2. THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, COLLECTORATE, KOLLAM. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, KUNNATHOOR, SASTHAMKOTTA, KOLLAM. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.P.N. SANTHOSH. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/03/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P.(C). No.5555/2010-T ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 1st day of March, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner's family was having absolute right for conducting vedi vazhipadu in Peruviruthy Malanada Devaswom from 1950 onwards which was being operated on the basis of a licence issued by the District Magistrate, Kollam, under the Explosives Act and Rules. Earlier, the petitioner's father-in-law was having the licence and thereafter it was transferred to the late husband of the petitioner as per Ext.P2. By Ext.P3, the petitioner was asked to obtain the licence by the Devaswom and, accordingly, she submitted an application for the said purpose. Ext.P4 is the licence issued to the petitioner by the second respondent-District Collector under the relevant rules. It is further averred in the writ petition that the Koottungal Kudumba Trust filed O.S.No.178/1996 against the petitioner before the Munsiff Court Sasthamcotta which was dismissed by Judgment dated 28/11/2003 and the same has become final. The licence was being extended from time to time and the last of the extension was by Ext.P5. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed an application for extension and renewal of the licence. W.P.(C). No.5555/2010 -:2:- 2. The petitioner had been waiting for grant of renewal of the licence and only when an application under the Right to Information Act was submitted that the petitioner was issued with a copy of the order of refusal to grant renewal of licence which is dated 20/05/2009 (Ext.P6). 3. This is under challenge in this writ petition. Mainly it is contended that the authorities have not bestowed attention to Rule 114 and Sub Rule 5 of Rule 116 of the Explosives Rules, 2008 also in not granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It is also pointed out that the licence was being renewed from time to time and it was in existence for the past 60 years. 4. The learned Government Pleader on instructions submitted that the reason for refusal of renewal of licence is evident from Ext.P6 itself, that there is a residential house within 45 meters of the building wherein the explosives are kept. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that she can offer a new building for the said purpose. 5. Going by Rule 114 of the Explosives Rules, 2008, before refusal, the applicant shall be given an opportunity of being heard. This is reiterated in Rule 116(5) of the Rules also which provides that before refusing renewal of a W.P.(C). No.5555/2010 -:3:- licence under the rule, the holder of the licence shall be given an opportunity of being heard. A reading of Ext.P6 does not show that the petitioner was given an opportunity of hearing. Further, the order was also not communicated to the petitioner for a long time and only when an application under Right to Information Act was given, the same has been issued. Therefore, Ext.P6 is quashed. The matter will be reconsidered by the second respondent after hearing the petitioner. It is upto the petitioner to file any fresh statement or representation in the matter which also will be considered by the second respondent. Since the period of licence is expiring on 31/03/2010, the second respondent will take a decision after hearing the petitioner before 31/03/2010. The petitioner will produce a copy of the writ petition along with a copy of this Judgment before the second respondent for compliance. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) ms