Disposed

A.R. Babu v. the District Collector

Kerala HC8 Oct 2013WP(C)/20053/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged a notice and proposed license cancellation due to being an accused in a criminal case. The court held that due process not observed as per Explosives Rules and directed a proper notice with hearing before finalizing proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Directs respondents to serve a proper notice and give opportunity of hearing before cancelling licenses; status quo maintained.

A.R. Babu Vs the District Collector — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2013/16TH ASWINA, 1935

¶5

WP(C).No. 20053 of 2013 (F)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

A.R. BABU, AGED 50 YEARS S/O.RAGHAVAN, ARAKKAL HOUSE, PATTANAM VADAKKEKARA, NORTH PARUR.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.K.R.VINOD

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, COLLECTORATE, KAKKANAD ERNAKULAM 682 030.

¶11

2. THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, COLLECTORATE, ERNAKULAM - 682 030.

¶12

BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.JOSEPH GEORGE

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08-10-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

tss

¶15

WP(C).No. 20053 of 2013 (F)

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶18

P1- THE TRUE COPY OF THE LICENSES NO.5/24/96/LE-5 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 2.4.2011.

¶19

P2- THE TRUE COPY OF THE LICENSES NO.2/24/90/LE-5 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 2.4.2011.

¶20

P3- THE TRUE COPY OF THE LICENSES NO.7/12/LE-1 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 26.6.2012.

¶21

P4- THE COPY OF THE SAID THE NOTICE DATED 27.7.2013 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶22

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

NIL

TRUE COPY

P.A. TO JUDGE

tss

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J.

¶28

¶29

W.P.(C) No. 20053 of 2013

¶30

¶31

JUDGMENT

¶32

The petitioner is challenging the correctness and sustainability of Ext. P4 notice issued by the 4^th respondent, asking the petitioner to

¶33

produce licenses issued by the concerned authority under the Explosives Act/Rules, lest orders should be passed in the absence of the petitioner.

¶34

The specific case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is running the business of selling crackers and such other fireworks, based on Exts. P1 to P3 licenses issued by the second respondent, which are valid in existence. It is stated that the licenses have not been revoked/set aside/cancelled or suspended by the authorities. It was while so, that the petitioner was served with Ext. P4 notice; the reason behind which was not let known to the petitioner. On receipt of Ext. P4 notice, the petitioner appeared before the first respondent with the originals of Exts. P1 to P3 licenses, which were taken to file, by the respondents and the petitioner was let known that these licenses would be cancelled for the reason that the petitioner happened to be an accused in a case filed by the Police. The learned

¶35

W.P.(C) No. 20053 of 2013

¶36

: 2 :

¶37

counsel for the petitioner submits that the course pursued by the respondents is not correct or sustainable, more so in view of the mandate given under the 'proviso' to Rule 118 (1) of the Explosives Rules, stipulating that before suspending or cancelling a license, an opportunity of being heard should be given to the licensee.

¶38

The learned Government Pleader submits that, pursuant to Ext. P4, though a hearing was conducted on 31.07.2013, final orders are yet to be passed. The learned Government Pleader submits that the petitioner happened to be arrayed as the 3^rd accused in Crime No. 695 of 2010 of Munambam Police Station involving offences under Section 308 and 304 of IPC, read with Section 3 (a) of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908.

¶39

After hearing both the sides and on going through the materials on record, this Court finds that the circumstance under which Ext. P4 notice came to be issued is not discernible. If the attempt of the second respondent is to suspend/revoke/cancel the licenses, it can only be in tune with the relevant provisions of law, particularly in tune with the mandate under the proviso to Rule 118 (1) of the above Rules.

¶40

W.P.(C) No. 20053 of 2013

¶41

: 3 :

¶42

In the said circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the first respondent to serve a proper notice to the petitioner, if there is any proposal to cancel or suspend or revoke the licenses as provided under above Rules and to finalize the proceedings only giving an opportunity to the petitioner to file objections, if any and an opportunity of hearing with regard to the course and events. The proceedings as above shall be finalized, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 'Status quo' as on date will continue till such time.

¶43

Sd/-

¶44

P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, (JUDGE)

¶45

kmd

A.R. Babu v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.R. Babu v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

C.H.Muhammed Kunhi Vs the Chief Environmental Engineer

Dineshan Vs State of Kerala

M.Hemalatha Vs the Post Master General

T.P.Ranjith Vs Prabhulla Balakrishnan

Kader Mydeen Wafer Vs Union of India

Thambi Vs Kerala State Film Development Corporation