Allowed

Rajeevan.T.K v. the Commissioner, Land Revenue

Kerala HC6 Feb 2014WP(C)/3152/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment addresses the fairness of cancelling a petitioner's explosives licence without rehearing him was passed 15 months after a prior hearing by a different officer who had already heard the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

Set aside order cancelling licence; restore application for renewal and direct respondent to dispose of it afresh within one month after hearing petitioner and furnishing copies of relevant police rep

Rajeevan.T.K Vs the Commissioner, Land Revenue — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2014/17TH MAGHA, 1935

¶5

WP(C).No. 3152 of 2014 (T)

¶6

PETITIONER:-:

¶7

RAJEEVAN T.K., AGED 42 YEARS, S/O.BALAN, THAIKANDIYIL HOUSE, MADAPPALLY COLLEGE P.O., VATAKARA.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN SMT.A.R.PRAVITHA SMT.D.S.THUSHARA SRI.H.PRAVEEN (KOTTARAKARA)

¶9

RESPONDENTS:-:

¶10

THE COMMISSIONER, LAND REVENUE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶11

THE ADDL. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, KOZHIKODE - 673 001.

¶12

BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.C.VINCENT

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06-02-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

WP(C).No. 3152 of 2014 (T)

¶15

APPENDIX

¶16

PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS :

¶17

EXHIBIT P1. COPY OF THE LICENCE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT UNDER THE EXPLOSIVES RULES DATED 27.01.2005.

¶18

EXHIBIT P2. COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.148/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE VATAKARA POLICE STATION.

¶19

EXHIBIT P3. COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.2012/9634/II/D5 DATED 20.09.2012 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶20

EXHIBIT P4. COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEARING NO.2012/ 9634/ 11/D5 DATED 04.01.2012.

¶21

EXHIBIT P5. COPY OF THE REVERSE SIDE OF EXHIBIT P1 WITH ENDORSEMENT.

¶22

EXHIBIT P6. COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR RENEWAL OF LICENCE AND CHALAN RECEIPT DATED 23.02.2012.

¶23

RESPONDENTS’ EXHIBITS :

NIL

// True Copy //

P.A. To Judge

DSV/11/02

P.N.RAVINDRAN, J.

¶29

--------------------------------------W.P.(C) No. 3152 of 2014

¶30

Dated this the 6^th day of February, 2014

¶31

J U D G M E N T

¶32

The petitioner is the holder of a licence issued under the Explosives Act, 1884 and the rules framed thereunder. Exhibit P1 is a copy of the licence that was originally granted on 27.01.2005 and was being periodically renewed. It was valid till 31.03.2012. While matters stood thus, Crime No.148 of 2012 was registered by the Vatakara Police against the petitioner alleging commission of the offence punishable under section 9 B (i) (a) of the Explosives Act, 1884. Shortly thereafter, the petitioner applied for renewal of the licence. While the said application was pending, the second respondent issued Exhibit P3 notice dated 20.09.2012 calling upon the petitioner to be present for a hearing on 03.10.2012 for the purpose of considering his application for renewal of the licence. In that notice it was also mentioned that the Police have recommended revocation of the licence issued to him. The petitioner accordingly appeared before the second respondent on 03.10.2012. On that day the hearing was adjourned to 05.10.2012. The petitioner states that though on 05.10.2012 he had appeared and a hearing was also conducted, no

¶33

W.P.(C) No. 3152 of 2014 2

¶34

order was passed or communicated to the petitioner and that long thereafter, a copy of Exhibit P4 order dated 04.01.2014 passed by the the successor District Magistrate was served on him cancelling his licence and rejecting his application for renewal. Exhibit P4 is under challenge in this writ petition wherein the principal ground raised is that before it was issued the petitioner was not heard, that the registration of a criminal case is not a ground to refuse renewal of the licence or cancellation of the licence and that the hearing was held on 05.10.2012 by Smt. R. Remadevi, the then Additional District Magistrate, but the impugned order is one passed by Sri.P.Arumughan long thereafter on 04.01.2014.

¶35

I heard Sri.K.Mohanakannan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.K.C.Vincent, learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. The respondents do not dispute the fact that the petitioner was heard on 05.10.2012 by the then Additional District Magistrate Smt. R. Remadevi. The stand taken by the respondents is that as the petitioner had filed a statement at the time of hearing and it is part of the records, it was not necessary for the successor Additional District Magistrate to hear him. However, it is not in dispute that the impugned order was passed 15 months after the petitioner was heard. Though the learned Government Pleader

¶36

W.P.(C) No. 3152 of 2014 3

¶37

submitted that the petitioner had filed a representation at the time of hearing, the impugned order does not refer to it. In such circumstances, as the petitioner was heard on 05.10.2012 and the impugned order was passed by another person on 04.01.2014, nearly 15 months thereafter, and also for the reason that the second respondent has relied on a report submitted by the District Police Chief, Vatakara on 29.11.2013 after the hearing, I am of the opinion that the second respondent should reconsider the petitioner's application for renewal of the licence after furnishing copies of the reports submitted by the District Police Chief on 08.08.2012 and on 29.11.2013.

¶38

I accordingly, allow the writ petition, set aside Exhibit P4 order dated 04.01.2014 passed by the second respondent, restore the petitioner's application for renewal of the Explosives licence to file and direct the second respondent to dispose of the said application afresh expeditiously and in any event within an outer limit of one month from the date of production of a copy of this judgment along with a copy of this writ petition, complete in all aspects, after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard and after furnishing him with copies of the reports dated 08.08.2012 and on 29.11.2013 submitted by the District Police Chief, Kozhikode Rural. Copies of the said reports shall

¶39

W.P.(C) No. 3152 of 2014

¶40

¶41

be furnished to the petitioner within one week from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. It will be open to the petitioner to submit an appropriate representation setting out his contentions and the respondents shall have due regard to the representation, if any, filed by the petitioner while passing orders on the applications. Needless to say, the petitioner shall not in the meanwhile engage in the manufacturing, storing or selling of fire works and if the petitioner does so, it will be open to the respondents to take effective steps to prevent the petitioner from manufacturing or storing or selling fire works so long as the licence is not renewed. The petitioner's entitlement to manufacture, store and sell fire works will depend on the decision to be taken by the Additional District Magistrate pursuant to this judgment.

Sd/-

P.N.RAVINDRAN,

JUDGE

DSV/10/02

W.P.(C) No. 3152 of 2014 5

¶47

W.P.(C) No. 3152 of 2014 6

Rajeevan.T.K v. the Commissioner, Land Revenue

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajeevan.T.K v. the Commissioner, Land Revenue

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

Rajan George Vs the Village Officer, Kottarakkara

M/S. Priyadarshini Agencies Vs State of Kerala

Muhammed Yasin Vs the Circle Inspector of Police

A.Thajudheen Vs State of Kerala

Radha @ Radammal Vs Village Officer

Maya P.Nayar Vs the Commissioner