IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 27744 of 2009(K)
1. K.PURUSHOTHAMAN, SABU NIVAS,
... Petitioner
2. P.SABU, S/O.K.PURUSHOTHAMAN,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE,
3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
4. THE TAHSILDAR, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM.
5. THE DEPUTY CHIEF CONTROLLER OF
For Petitioner :SRI.M.K.CHANDRA MOHANDAS
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Dated :30/01/2010
O R D E R
T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.
------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C)No.27744 of 2009
------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 30th day of January, 2010
JUDGMENT
The petitioners are aggrieved by the rejection of the
application for grant of Explosive Licence. The short facts for
the disposal of the case are the following:-
2. The first petitioner was issued with licence No.6/90
QLN dated 4.4.1990 in Form No.20 for manufacturing of one
kilo gram of gun powder and five kilo grams fire works by the
second respondent Additional District Magistrate. Ext.P1 is the
copy of the proceedings renewing the licence up to 31.3.2008.
The second respondent, who is the son of the first petitioner,
was also granted a licence as No.1/2006 dated 2/2/2006 in Form
No.24 to possess and sell fireworks from a shop not exceeding
50 kilo grams of class 7 Division 2 Sub division 2 and 400
Kilograms of Class 7 Division 2 Sub Division 1.
3. Ext.P2 is the copy of the same. They applied for
renewal of the licence and during the pendancy of the
application for renewal the local police conducted an inspection
they seized the explosives, which were in his possession. The
petitioners were continuing the operation on the ground that the
W.P.(C)No.27744 of 2009
2
deeming clause under Rule 165(3) will apply until the licence is
renewed.
4. Aggrieved by the delay in granting the renewal, the
petitioner had approached this Hon’ble Court by filing W.P.(C)
No.31114/2008 wherein a direction was issued to the second
respondent to dispose of the applications for renewal within
three weeks. But the applications were rejected by Ext.P3
stating that the police report is against them. It is evident from
Ext.P3 that a crime case No.534/08 was registered against the
applicant’s son. Ext.P4 is the order passed by the second
respondent rejecting the application for renewal submitted by
the second petitioner.
5. It is the case of the petitioners that the second
petitioner was acquitted from the said criminal cases, going by
Ext.P5 judgment the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class,
Kottarakara. In the meanwhile Ext.P4 was under challenge in an
appeal before the 1st respondent, which also stands rejected by
Ext.P6.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
in the light of the acquittal as per Ext.P5 the report now relied
upon that they are involved in criminal cases cannot be a basis
W.P.(C)No.27744 of 2009
3
for not renewing the licence. My attention was drawn into the
details of Ext.P5 judgment. Crime was registered under Section
9(B) (1) (b) of Explosive Act and they were acquitted by learned
Magistrate after trial. The second petitioner was the accused
therein.
7. Therefore the learned counsel for the petitioner seek
for a re-consideration of the matter in the light of Ext.P5
judgment. The second respondent will re-consider the matter
expeditiously in the light of Ext.P5 judgment. While re-
considering the application it is open to the second respondent
to call for a fresh report from the Superintendent of Police. The
question whether petitioners are involved in any other criminal
cases will also be examined. If the second respondent is
satisfied, that the licence can be renewed depending upon the
various reports including Police reports and after examining
Ext.P5 judgment appropriate orders will be passed within a
period of 2 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this
judgment. No costs.
T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE
skj
