K.Purushothaman vs State Of Kerala on 30 January, 2010

Kerala High Court
K.Purushothaman vs State Of Kerala on 30 January, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  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

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *