Writ petition challenging refusal to grant LE-5 license for manufacturing fireworks. Court set aside impugned order and directed authorities to reconsider the application giving opportunity of hearing.
Set aside Ext.P12; directed 2nd respondent to reconsider Ext.P8 within two months after giving petitioner opportunity of hearing.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
TUESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF JULY 2022 / 14TH ASHADHA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 10157 OF 2022
PETITIONER/S:
JAGADAMMA P, AGED 63 YEARS
W/O LATE MOHANADASAN PILLAI, VANI NIVAS,
KANNIMEL CHERRY, KILIKOLLUR P.O.KOLLAM-691 004.
BY ADV B.MOHANLAL
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.2 THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION, CUTCHERYP.O.KOLLAM-691 013.3 THE CITY POLICE COMMISSIONER, KOLLAM CITY, KOLLAM-691 001.4 THE REGIONAL FIRE OFFICER, REGIONAL FIRE OFFICE, FIRE AND RESCUE SERVICES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.5 THE DISTRICT FIRE OFFICER, FIRE AND RESCUE SERVICES, KOLLAM-691 001.6 THE TAHASILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM-690 573.OTHER PRESENT:
SMT.VIDYA KURIAKOSE, GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 05.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
W.P.(C). No. 10157 of 2022
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
W.P.(C) No.10157 of 2022
Dated this the 5th day of July, 2022
JUDGMENT
The above writ petition is filed with following prayers:
“(i) To call for the records leading to Ext.P12 order from the 2nd respondent and Ext.P13 report of the 5th respondent and issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing Ext.P12 order of the 2nd respondent and Ext.P13 report of the 5th respondent adversely against the petitioner to deny license to possess and sale of 100 kgms manufactured fireworks in addition to the quantity of Explosives permitted in Ext.P6 and P7 License.
(ii) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 2nd respondent to grant LE-5 license under Explosives Rules 2008 to the petitioner to possess and sale of 100 Kgms of manufactured Fire Works in addition to the quantity of Explosives granted to the petitioner in Ext.P6 and P7 license within a stipulated time as directed by this Hon’ble Court notwithstanding anything contained in Ext.P13 adverse report of the 5th respondent.
(iii) To declare that the petitioner is entitled to get LE-5 license from the 2nd respondent under Explosives Rules
-3-
W.P.(C). No. 10157 of 2022
2008 for possession and sale of 100 Kgms manufactured Fire Works in additional to the quantity of Explosives granted to the petitioner in Ext.P6 and P7 license.
(iv) Issue such other reliefs as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.” (sic)
denying licence to possess and sale of 100 kgm manufactured fireworks in addition to the quantity of explosives permitted in Exts.P6 and P7 licences, this writ petition is filed. The petitioner submitted Ext.P1 application along with relevant documents before the 2nd respondent to stock and sell 100 kgm manufactured fireworks and 500 kg chinese crackers and sparkles in the building bearing Door No.CP.20/4 of Chavara Grama Panchayat situated in Sy.No.94/2-2 of Chavara Village after obtaining lease agreement with the landlord. It is the case of the petitioner that respondents 3 to 5 recommended the application as per Exts.P2 to P4, however, the 6th respondent
W.P.(C). No. 10157 of 2022
-4-
submitted report stating that neighbouring property owners raised objection. It is the case of the petitioner that the 2nd respondent without considering the material aspect, rejected the licence. The petitioner challenged the proceedings in WP(C) No.29024 of 2020 which resulted in Ext.P5 judgment. This Court set aside the impugned order and directed the 2nd respondent to pass orders in the application afresh, within four weeks. Thereafter, as directed by this Court in Ext.P5 judgment, the 2nd respondent passed Ext.P6 order and Ext.P7 licence to the petitioner and Form LE-5 to the petitioner to posses and sell 500 kg chinese crackers and sparkles. It is the specific case of the petitioner that the 2nd respondent not issued licence to possess and sale 100 kg manufactured fireworks in Exts.P6 and P7. The petitioner submitted Ext.P8 application along with Ext.P9 challan before the 2nd respondent requesting to issue licence to the petitioner to possess and sale 100 kg
W.P.(C). No. 10157 of 2022
-5-
manufactured fireworks in addition to Exts.P6 and P7. Thereafter, the petitioner again filed WP(C) No.26994 of 2021, which resulted Ext.P11 judgment directing the 2nd respondent to take up the representation and applications and to consider the same in accordance with law within one month. It is the case of the petitioner that the 2nd respondent, on misconception of facts and law, declined the application by Ext.P12 order on flimsy grounds on the basis of Ext.P13 adverse report of the 5th respondent. It is the case of the petitioner that the 2nd respondent ought to have found that respondents 3 to 6 already recommended the applications as per Exts.P2 to P4 and licence was granted to petitioner as per Exts.P6 and P7 to possess and sell 500 kg chinese crackers and the licence was granted under LE5. It is also the case of the petitioner that the same is situation exist in the licensed premises for granting 100 kg of manufacture firework. The contention of the 5th respondent in
W.P.(C). No. 10157 of 2022
-6-
Ext.P13 that the Aluminum Fabrication Unit situated adjacent to the licensed premises of the petitioner used cutting machine and there is every chance for danger if the cutting machines used carelessly is only to deny the grant of additional 100 kg of manufactured fireworks. The counsel submitted that already licece is granted for 500 kg. Hence, such a stand will not stand. Aggrieved by the same, this writ petition is filed.
Government Pleader.
W.P.(C). No. 10157 of 2022
-7-
writ petition. I think in the light of Ext.P4 by the 4th respondent Ext.P12 can be set aside and there can be a direction to reconsider the matter, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of in the following
manner:
sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE
das
-8-
W.P.(C). No. 10157 of 2022
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 10157/2022
PETITIOExhibit |
NER EXHIP1 |
BITSTHE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED20.7.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERBEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT |
|---|---|---|
Exhibit |
P2 |
THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT NO G2-51858/2019/QC DATED 6.2.2020 SUBMITTEDBY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 2NDRESPONDENT |
Exhibit |
P3 |
THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT NO C10-13684/2019 DATED 6.2.2020 SUBMITTED BYTHE 6TH RESPONDENT TO THE DISTRICTCOLLECTOR |
Exhibit |
P4 |
THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT NO B-834/20 DATED 16.3.2020 |
Exhibit |
P5 |
THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT WPC NO29024/2020 DATED 22.7.2021 OF THEHON'BLE COURT |
Exhibit |
P6 |
THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NODCKLM/8023/2021/M7 DATED 20.9.2021ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THEPETITIONER |
Exhibit |
P7 |
THE TRUE COPY OF THE LE-5 LICENSE NO01/2021/KLM DATED 20.9.2021 ISSUED BYTHE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER |
Exhibit |
P8 |
THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED15.11.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERBEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT |
Exhibit |
P9 |
THE TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT INCHELLAN DATED 15.1.2021 OF THEDISTRICT TREASURY, KOLLAM |
Exhibit |
P10 |
THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATIONDATED 15.11.2021 SUBMITTED BY THEPETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENTAND ITS RECEIPT |
Exhibit |
P11 |
THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED6.12.2021 IN WPC NO 26944/2021 OF THISHON'BLE COURT |
W.P.(C). No. 10157 of 2022
-9-
Exhibit P12THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO
DCKLM/8023/2021-M7/DATED 12.1.2022
ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE
PETITIONER
Exhibit P13THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT NO H-
6820/2021 DATED 23.12.2021 SUBMITTED
BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND
RESPONDENT
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the impugned order suppressing 100 kg of manufactured fireworks should be set aside?
JAGADAMMA P
STATE OF KERALA
THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE
THE CITY POLICE COMMISSIONER
THE REGIONAL FIRE OFFICER
THE DISTRICT FIRE OFFICER
P.V. KUNHIKRISHNAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court