Partly allowed

S.Mani, v. the Additional Director

Madras HC31 Oct 2018WP(MD)/21958/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, in a writ petition, addressed the petitioner's challenge to the rejection of a permanent cracker license. The Court directed the Commissioner of Police to issue a temporary license for the Deepavali season while mandating compliance with safety defects to secure a permanent license in the future.

What did the court decide?

Second respondent directed to issue temporary cracker license for Deepavali season; petitioner to rectify defects for permanent license.

S.Mani, Vs the Additional Director — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 31.10.2018

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.PARTHIBAN

¶6

W.P.(MD) No.21958 of 2018

¶7

and

¶8

W.M.P.(MD) Nos.19904, 19905 & 19906 of 2018

¶9

S.Mani ... Petitioner

¶10

vs.

¶11

1.The Additional Director General of Police Law & Order Kamarajar Salai Mylapore, Chennai-600 004

¶12

2.The Commissioner of Police Madurai City, Madurai

¶13

3.The Inspector of Police Anna Nagar Police Station, Madurai ... Respondents

¶14

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the 1^st Respondent in his proceedings Rc.No.174168/A&R.2/2017, dated 17.10.2018 and quash the same on the ground that the same is arbitrary, illegal and without any legal basis and consequently direct the Respondents from preventing the Petitioner's shop at No.4/289, Sourastrapuram, Vandiyur, Madurai-625 020 for selling of crackers.

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Vellaichamy For Respondents : Mr.S.Angappan Government Advocate (Civil Side)

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

After notice was ordered, Mr.S.Angappan, learned Government Advocate (Civil Side), has entered appearance on behalf of the respondents and produced a status report of the Commissioner of Police, Madurai City, dated 30.10.2018. In the said status https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ report, the reasons for rejection of the petitioner's claim have been stated as under:

¶18

¶19

Explosiv e Rule	Descrip	tion	Reason for rejection
83(4)(a)	The shop shall on the ground building separated from of the bu substantial wa independent en emergency exit air and hav opening outwards	be located floor of a completely other parts ilding by lls having trance and from open ing doors .	Instead of doors opening outwards, shutter type door opening upwards is fixed.
83(4)(c)	The shop sha situated under floor used for of dwelling.	ll not be the upper the purpose	The shop is situated under the upper floor used for the purpose of dwelling

¶20

2. According to the status report, the petitioner is not eligible for issuance of permanent cracker license in view of the deficiency as pointed out therein. However, the status report concludes that the petitioner is eligible for issuance of temporary cracker license, during the festival seasons, in the existing premises. The operative portion of the status report, as found in Paragraph Nos.5 and 6, is extracted hereunder:

¶21

“5) The premises opted by the applicant is not eligible for issue of Permanent Cracker License as per the rules described in para-1 above. If the applicant opt a separate new premise as per Explosive Rules-2008, it could be considered for change of premise and renewal for the issued Permanent Cracker License.

¶22

6) Otherwise, the applicant shall be issued only Temporary Cracker License, during the festival seasons in the existing premises.”

¶23

3. In view of the above status report, the second respondent is directed to issue temporary cracker license to the petitioner for running his cracker business in the existing premises for the present Deepavali season alone. It is also made clear that while granting temporary cracker license to the petitioner, it is open to the second respondent to impose any reasonable safety conditions on the petitioner. It is further made clear the present order is confined only for the present Deepavali season and the same does not confer any right on the petitioner for seeking permanent cracker license without rectifying the defects as pointed out in the status report. It is also made clear that https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ it is open to the petitioner to approach the Authority concerned for grant of permanent cracker license, after rectifying the defects as pointed out by the Authority in this regard.

¶24

¶25

4. With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶26

Sd/-

¶27

Assistant Registrar (P & C)

¶28

// True Copy //

¶29

Sub Assistant Registrar(CS-IV)

¶30

To:

¶31

1.The Additional Director

¶32

General of Police, Law & Order, Kamarajar Salai, Mylapore, Chennai-600 004.

¶33

2.The Commissioner of Police, Madurai City, Madurai.

¶34

3.The Inspector of Police, Anna Nagar Police Station, Madurai.

¶35

+1 CC To MR.M.V.VENKATASESHAN, Advocate SR. NO. 93418

¶36

W.P.(MD) No.21958 of 2018 and

¶37

W.M.P.(MD) Nos.19904, 19905 & 19906 of 2018

¶38

KRK

¶39

TR/RSK/SAR-IV(31.10.2018)3P 5C

¶40

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

S.Mani, v. the Additional Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Mani, v. the Additional Director

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

Ismail Nawaz @ Jahir Hussain Vs the Government of Tamilnadu

M.Kaliyan, S/O. Muthan, Vs the Government of India

B.Sardar Basha Vs the Government of Tamil Nadu

S.Suresh Kannan, Vs the Additional Director

B.Freeda Mary, W/O.Mani Vs the Dindigul Collector

A.Balamurugan, Vs the District Registrar