High Court Kerala High Court

Thankarajan vs The Circle Inspector Of Police on 25 February, 2010

Kerala High Court
Thankarajan vs The Circle Inspector Of Police on 25 February, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 37639 of 2009(Y)


1. THANKARAJAN, S/O.JOSEPH,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, POOVAR.
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.R.T.PRADEEP

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS

 Dated :25/02/2010

 O R D E R
                          K. M. JOSEPH &
                 M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ.
              - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                 W.P.(C).No. 37639 of 2009 Y
              - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
           Dated this the 25th day of February, 2010

                             JUDGMENT

Joseph, J.

The petitioner has approached this Court for a direction to

the respondents to refrain from interfering with the manufacture

of Gun Powder in terms of the licence, in the wake of Ext.P6.

2. The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows.

Petitioner is having a licence to manufacture 15 kgs. of gun

powder at a time. Initially licence was granted w.e.f. 31.3.1995,

which was renewed from time to time and it was valid upto

31.3.2009. He was engaged in manufacture of fire works for

festivals. He has been implicated in Crime No. 132 of 2009 for

offences punishable under the Explosive Act, when application

for renewal of the licence was pending consideration.

W.P.(C).No. 37639 of 2009

2

3. When the interference by the police became rampant, the

petitioner filed W.P.(C) No. 22385 of 2009 before this Court. As per

Ext.P3 interim order, this Court directed the Additional District

Magistrate to dispose of the application for renewal of licence. The

Additional District Magistrate, by Ext.P4, rejected the application on

the ground that safety measures are not fool proof. Petitioner

preferred Ext.P5 appeal and obtained Ext.P6 order of stay.

4. We heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned

Government Pleader.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

Government has taken a policy decision not to grant Explosive

Licences to individuals, but to grant licence only to Co-operative

Societies and the Government has granted time till 31.3.2010 for the

existing licence holder to become members of Co-operative Societies

and to avail of the benefit of the policy.

6. In this case, the application for licence of the petitioner has

been rejected by the Additional District Magistrate. Against the

W.P.(C).No. 37639 of 2009

3

dismissal order, an appeal was filed by the petitioner. The

Government has passed an order of stay in that appeal. The prayer in

the Writ Petition is founded on Ext.P6 order of stay. We notice that

the appeal itself is directed against the rejection of the application for

licence. In such circumstances, we feel that it is for the petitioner to

approach the Government and seek clarification of the order, as to the

effect of the stay order granted in the facts of this case.

7. Without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to move the

Government, this Writ Petition is disposed of.

(K. M. JOSEPH)
Judge

(M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS)
Judge

tm