Allowed

Saju George, v. the Additional District Magistrate

Kerala HC3 Nov 2022WP(C)/22015/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner challenged the Additional District Magistrate's order rejecting an NOC application for explosives magazines. The court held that public protest is not a valid statutory ground for rejection if the petitioner complies with statutory distances. The impugned order was set aside, and fresh orders were directed to be passed after hearing objectors.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order rejecting the NOC application (Ext.P5) was set aside. The respondent was directed to pass fresh orders within two months after hearing the petitioner and objectors.

Saju George, Vs the Additional District… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 3^RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 12TH KARTHIKA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 22015 OF 2022

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

SAJU GEORGE, AGED 52 YEARS THAKKOLKARAN HOUSE, PUTHENCHIRA P.O, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680682.

¶7

BY ADV BINU PAUL

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, OFFICE OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM.

¶10

2 THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, (RURAL) OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT POLICE OFFICE, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT PIN-683101.

¶11

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.11.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶12

W.P.(C) No.22015 of 2022

¶13

¶14

JUDGMENT

¶15

The petitioner submitted an application for No Objection Certificate (for short 'NOC') under the Explosive Rules, 2008 (for short, 'the Rules') for license to possess explosives of class 1 to 7 in a magazine. The 1st respondent by Ext.P5 rejected the application on the ground that there is adverse police report regarding law and order issue and strong objections from the local residents against the installation of magazine. The petitioner accordingly approached this Court challenging Ext.P5 order. The petitioner submits that there are no residential buildings within the distance prescribed as per Schedule 8 of the Rules and that public protest cannot be a ground for rejection of the application for NOC.

¶16

The learned Government Pleader, on instructions, submits that the petitioner has got an alternate remedy under Rule 121 of the Rules against Ext.P5 and that the 1st respondent

¶17

W.P.(C) No.22015 of 2022 3

¶18

has rejected the application taking note of the public protest which may lead to law and order situation. The learned Government Pleader also refers to adverse police report regarding law and order mentioned in Ext.P5 to reject the NOC.

¶19

As per Schedule 8 of the Rules the 1st respondent

¶20

has to see whether there are any buildings within a minimum distance of 45 meters from the site. It is not in dispute that there are no buildings within a distance of 50 meters. The sole reason stated in Ext.P5 for rejecting NOC is public protest. If the petitioner is otherwise entitled for NOC under the Rules, the

¶21

same has to be issued by the 1st respondent notwithstanding the public protest.

¶22

Accordingly Ext.P5 is set aside. There will be a direction to the 1st respondent to pass fresh orders on the application of the petitioner for NOC in accordance with the provisions of Explosive Rules after hearing the petitioner and the objectors referred to in the penultimate paragraph of Ext. P5 order. Fresh orders shall be passed within a period of two

¶23

W.P.(C) No.22015 of 2022

¶24

¶25

months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is made clear that this Court has not made any observation on the

¶26

merits of the application for NOC.

¶27

The writ petition is disposed of.

¶28

Sd/-

¶29

MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE

¶30

¶31

W.P.(C) No.22015 of 2022

¶32

¶33

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 22015/2022

¶34

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶35

Exhibit P1	THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, THRISSUR (RURAL) DATED 18.12.2019.
Exhibit P2	THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE TAHSILDAR, KUNNATHUNADU DATED 06.12.2019.
Exhibit P3	THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VENGOOR WEST DATED 03.12.2019.
Exhibit P4	THE TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF THE REGIONAL FIRE OFFICER, ERNAKULAM DATED 30.10.2019.
Exhibit P5	THE TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE NO. DCEKM/10005/2019-M 4 DATED 20.06.2022.
Exhibit P6	THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HONBLE COURT IN WP(C).NO.32040 OF 2019 DATED 05.02.2020.
Exhibit P7	THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HONBLE COURT IN WP(C).NO. 30888 OF 2017 DATED 24.05.2019.

Saju George, v. the Additional District Magistrate

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saju George, v. the Additional District Magistrate

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

K. Abdul Razak Vs State of Kerala

A.Nazarudheen Vs Satheesh

P.K.Baby, Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

Murali T.G Vs Vettom Grama Panchayath

Mohanan Vs the District Collector

Rabiya Kattayath Thazhath Vs the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions