IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH DECEMBER 2011 / 23RD AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 32559 of 2011(T) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- A.I.POTHEN, S/O.IDICHANDY, MANAGING PARTNER, MOUNT ZION GRANITE, MALAYALAPPUZHA, THAZHAM P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.S.JOHN SRI.JESTIN MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): --------------- THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PATHANAMTHITTA-689 645. GP SRI. MOHAMMED SHAH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/12/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 32559 of 2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.51/10 DATED 18.9.10 FROM THE VILLAGE OFFICE, MALAYALAPUZHA. EXHIBIT P2- TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FORM SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DT.23.10.09. EXHIBIT P3- TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT ALONG WITH LOCATION SKETCH AND COPY OF THE THANDEPPER REGISTER TO COLLECTOR. EXHIBIT P4- TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DT.3.1.11 FROM SP, PATHANAMTHITTA. EXHIBIT P5- TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT DT.31ST JANUARY 2011. EXHIBIT P6- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF DISTRICT COLLECTOR OF PATHANAMTHITTA, DATED 14.6.2011. /true copy/ P.A. To Judge ANTONY DOMINIC, J ....................................................... W.P.(C).32559/2011 .............................................. Dated this the 14th day of December, 2011 JUDGMENT Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondent. 2. In this writ petition Ext.P6 order passed by the respondent declining NOC for obtaining an explosive magazine licence, is under challenge. A reading of Ext.P6 shows that based on a report dated 22.3.2011 obtained from the Tahsildar, Kollencherry, the application of the petitioner has been rejected stating that the antecedents of the petitioner are not satisfactory in as much as they have resorted unauthorised quarrying in the past. 3. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that Ext.P6 order has been passed in violation of Rule 103(3)(a) of the Explosives Rules, 2008. As rightly pointed out by the learned Government Pleader, Rule 103 (3)(a) of the Rules has relevance only in a case where interest of the public is verified and not in a situation where the antecedents of the applicant is examined. W.P.(C).32559/11 2 Therefore, this contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner has no merit. 4. However, fact remains that when an application was made by the petitioner, respondent obtained a report dated 22.3.2011 from the Tahasildar which indicated that the antecedents of the petitioner were unsatisfactory. It is accepting that report, the NOC application made by the petitioner is rejected. However, in that process copy of the report was neither served on the petitioner nor even the contents thereof disclosed to the petitioner. Further, this was passed without hearing the petitioner. For all these reasons it has to be held that Ext.P6 has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. Therefore, I am inclined to think that Ext.P6 is unsustainable. 5. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition will stand disposed of directing that Ext.P6 will be treated as a notice and it will be open to the petitioner to file his objections to Ext.P6 and if such objections are filed within two weeks from today, on receipt thereof, respondents shall issue notice to the petitioner, hear him W.P.(C).32559/11 3 and pass fresh orders in the matter, which shall be done within six weeks thereafter. It will also be open to the petitioner to seek issuance of a copy of the report dated 22.3.2011 relied on in Ext.P6. Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before the respondent for compliance. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs