Disposed

Sony George.B v. the Joint Chief Contgroller of Explosive

Kerala HC1 Apr 2009WP(C)/1553/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court directed the Joint Chief Controller of Explosives to finalize proceedings against the petitioner regarding the suspended license with notice within six weeks, ensuring the authority considers merits rather than relying only on investigation reports.

What did the court decide?

First respondent directed to finalize proceedings with notice to the petitioner within six weeks and not be guided only by investigation reports.

Sony George.B Vs the Joint Chief Contgroller of… — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 15TH JANUARY 2009 / 25TH POUSHA 1930 WP(C).No. 1553 of 2009(I) ------------------------PETITIONER(S): ---------------

¶4

SONY GEORGE.B., AGED 38 YEARS, S/O.P.V.GEORGE, M/S.G.M. & SONS GRANITES, PONGANAMKADU, KURICHIKARA P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680028.

¶5

BY ADV. SRI.JOBI JOSE KONDODY

¶6

RESPONDENT(S): ---------------

¶7

THE JOINT CHIEF CONTROLLER OF EXPLOSIVES, MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY, PETROLEUM AND EXPLOSIVES SAFETY ORGANISATION (PESO), 140, RUKMINI LAKSHMIPATHI SALAI, EGMORE, CHENNAI-8.

¶8

THE DEPUTY CHIEF CONTROLLER OF EXPLOSIVES, PETROLEUM AND EXPLOSIVES SAFETY ORGANISATION, KENDRIYA BHAVAN, BLOCK C2, 3RD FLOOR, CSEZ P.O., KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI - 682 037.

¶9

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, AYYANTHOLE P.O. THRISSUR.

¶10

THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, CIVIL STATION, AYYANTHOLE P.O. THRISSUR.

¶11

THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CIVIL STATION, AYYANTHOLE P.O. THRISSUR.

¶12

THE SECRETARY, JANAKEEYA POURA SAMITHI, PONGANAMKADU, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶13

BY ASG SRI. P. PARAMESWARAN NAIR BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. P.N. SANTHOSH

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

ANTONY DOMINIC,J.

¶16

W.P.(C).No.1553 OF 2009

¶17

Dated this the 15^th day of January, 2009.

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

Heard ASG for R1& R2 and Government Pleader for

¶20

R3 to R6.

¶21

Petitioner was granted Ext.P1 licence in form 22 under the Explosive Act. Subsequent to its grant, on the allegation that certain explosives were recovered from his premises, Crime No.205/06 was registered against him. Based on the said case, the 3^rd respondent sent Ext.P5 report to the first respondent. Thereafter, by Ext.P8 the first respondent suspended Ext.P1 licence. Aggrieved by the suspension of licence petitioner filed Ext.P9 before the first respondent but however there has not been any progress in the matter.

¶22

Although learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Ext.P8 suspension issued by the petitioner is vitiated

¶23

WP(c).No.1553/09

¶24

¶25

for the reason that the same was passed without notice to him, having regard to the fact that by now the suspension

¶26

has been ordered by Ext.P8 and is already implemented, I am inclined to direct the first respondent to finalize the proceedings with notice to the petitioner and adverting to his contentions.

¶27

At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that, in view of Exts.P4 and P5 reports, the first respondent will be guided by the contents of those reports and therefore he is not likely to get justice from the first respondent.

¶28

I am not in a position to accept this submission. The first respondent being the authority who ordered suspension of the licence by Ext.P8, is bound to consider the merits of the case and decide the matter in the light of the material available before him and he shall not be guided only by the contents of Exts.P4 and P5 reports. In view of this it is directed that the first respondent shall

¶29

WP(c).No.1553/09

¶30

¶31

conclude the proceedings initiated against the petitioner

¶32

with notice to him and as expeditiously as possible and at

¶33

any rate within 6 weeks from the date of production of a copy of this judgment.

¶34

petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment along

¶35

with a copy of the writ petition before the first respondent for compliance.

¶36

(ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE

¶37

vi/

¶38

WP(c).No.1553/09 4

Sony George.B v. the Joint Chief Contgroller of Explosive

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sony George.B v. the Joint Chief Contgroller of Explosive

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr. Xavier Mathew Vs State Public Infofrmation Officer and Oo

K.Raveendran Vs State of Kerala

M.S.Santhosh Vs Sub Inspector of Police

P.T.Hussain Vs Secretary,Regional Transport Authority

Abdurahimankutty Vs State of Kerala

G.Narayana Pillai Vs State of Kerala