IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 14^TH DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 24TH JYAISHTA, 1946 WP(C) NO. 28007 OF 2023 PETITIONER:

P V RAJEEVAN AGED 56 YEARS PUTHIYAVEETTIL HOUSE. KOOVERI P.O, KANNUR, PIN - 670581 BY ADV M.R.Jayalatha RESPONDENTS:

1 ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE COLLECTORATE RD, THAVAKKARA, KANNUR, KERALA, PIN - 670002

2 THE SECRETARY CHAPPAARAPADAVU GRAMA PANCHAYATH , CHAPPAARAPADAVUP.O KANNUR, PIN - 670003 BY ADVS.

ABHILASH K.N.

SUNIL NAIR PALAKKAT K.M.TINTU RISHI VARMA T.R.

RITHIK S.ANAND ANU PAUL ADV.AJITH VISWANATHAN – GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

J U D G M E N T

Dated this the 14^th day of June, 2024 Petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P13 order of the 1^st respondent/Additional District Magistrate, which refused to issue 'No Objection Certificate' to the petitioner's application for issuance of Form LE-3 license to establish an explosives magazine. Ext.P13 is issued essentially on the basis of a report from the Panchayath Council, which refers to protest from local residents, about a quarry, which is sought to be commenced and operated by the petitioner himself. Acting upon such report, Ext.P13 is issued, refusing the LE-3 license for explosives magazine.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader on behalf of the 1^st respondent and the learned Standing Counsel for the 2^nd respondent/Grama Panchayath.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, the objection/protest, if any, of the local people has to be considered only in the context of granting permit for quarrying operations; and not for the purpose of LE-3 license to establish an explosives magazine. Learned counsel would rely upon, Rule 103(3) of the Explosives Rules, 2008, especially Rule 103(3)(b) thereof, to point out that, since the quantity of explosive is not exceeding 100 kg, notice to the public for objection as required in Rule 103(3)(a), is not necessary. Therefore, the very ground which weighed with the 1^st respondent/Additional District Magistrate to reject the petitioner's application for license, as could be seen from Ext.P13, cannot be sustained at all, is the submission made.

4. Learned Government Pleader would submit on behalf of the 1^st respondent that, the District Magistrate has ample power under Rule 103(3) to make any enquiry, on any matter as deemed necessary before grant of license, which is decipherable from the contents of the Rule 107, as well.

5. Learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent/ Panchayath would contend that, in exercise of the powers of the District Magistrate, it is well within the limits of law to seek reports from the local authority, the District Police Chief etc., while issuing a license/permit under the Explosives Rules. It is that power, which has been exercised by the District Magistrate; and the Panchayath, for various reasons as stated in Exts.P11 & P12, has taken a decision not to recommend the petitioner's application for LE-3 license. The license can be issued only after conducting a detailed study by an expert body, as regards the environmental impact.

6. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, this Court finds that, Ext.P13 order of the 1^st respondent/District Magistrate cannot be sustained. Ext.P13 is seen issued on the basis of the report of the Panchayath Council and also on the basis of the protest of the local residents. The basis of the protest of the Panchayath Council appears to be security issues, drinking water problems and also the width of the road to the proposed quarry. Going by the scheme of the Explosives Rules, 2008, these are not matters, which are within the authority or jurisdiction of the Panchayath to consider. Needless to say that, the security/ safety concerns and also the concerns, if any, with respect to the drinking water source are matters relevant for con