Licensing authorities must adhere strictly to provisions of the relevant statute and cannot refuse licence renewal based solely on unrelated statutes without concluding inquiries.

JUDGMENT :

Nitin Jamdar, C.J.

By this Appeal filed under Section 5 of the KERALA HIGH COURT ACT , 1958, the Appellants/Respondents have challenged the judgment dated 11 July 2018 in W.P.(C) No. 32052 of 2017. The learned Single Judge by the impugned judgment, directed the Appellants to consider the application submitted by the Respondents/Petitioners for renewal of Explosives Licence and take a decision within six weeks.

2. The Appellants are the Additional District Magistrate, the Chairman, Taluk Land Board & Sub Collector, and the Geologist, Mining & Geology, Kozhikode. The Respondents in the Appeal are the Original Petitioners.

3. Petitioner No. 1 is the owner of a property in which Petitioner No. 2 is operating a quarry. The Petitioners, apart from holding other licenses, were also issued a licence by the Additional District Magistrate, Kozhikode, in Form LE-3 under the EXPLOSIVES ACT , 1884, and the Rules framed thereunder for the grant of such licence. After the expiry of the period of Explosives Licence, Petitioner No. 2 applied for its renewal on 2 February 2015. By letter dated 26 September 2016, the Additional District Magistrate informed the Petitioners that, in the light of the letter dated 26 August 2016, the renewal of Explosives Licence was rejected. Aggrieved by the rejection of the application for renewal of Explosives Licence, Petitioner No. 2 filed W.P.(C) No. 34788 of 2016. By judgment dated 24 March 2017, the Single Judge allowed the writ petition, quashed the letter dated 26 September 2016, and directed the Additional District Magistrate to reconsider the application for renewal. In light of the said judgment, the Additional District Magistrate reconsidered the application for renewal of the Explosives Licence submitted by the Petitioners and again rejected the same by order dated 28 June 2017. It was stated that, by virtue of the letter dated 25 February 2015 issued by the Secretary, Taluk Land Board, and taking into consideration the provisions of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, since the property cannot be fragmented or used for any purpose other than as a rubber plantation, it is not possible to renew the Explosives Licence of Petitioner No. 2.

4. Being aggrieved, the Petitioners have filed the subject writ petition challenging Exhibits – P9 and P11 orders dated 26 September 2016 and 28 June 2017. The learned Single Judge, by judgment dated 11 July 2018, allowed the writ petition and set aside the orders impugned therein, declaring that Exhibit – P11 decision is vitiated by lack of application of mind and directed the Appellants to consider the application for renewal of the Explosives Licence untrammelled by Exhibit – P7 letter dated 25 February 2015 issued by the Secretary, Land Board. Challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge, the State authorities are in appeal before us.

5. We have heard Mr. S. Renjith, the learned Special Government Pleader for the Appellants, and Mr. S. Nirmal, the learned counsel for the Respondents/Original Petitioners.

6. The learned Special Government Pleader submitted that the object of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 (Land Reforms Act) is to prevent fragmentation of plantations and that quarrying activity is not an exempted category under the said Act. He submitted that in the present case what is sought for is renewal of Explosives Licence for conducting quarrying activities in the exempted category of land. Quarrying, if permitted in the exempted category, would result in conversion of the property, which cannot be allowed. It is submi