SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 74226

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C. JAYACHANDRAN, J
SURESH BABU. S – Appellant
Versus
THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE OFFICE OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD – Respondent
WP(C) 11701/2024



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: BINU PAUL
For the Respondents:

Public protests against unrelated activities cannot be grounds for rejecting applications for licenses under the Explosive Rules.

Headnote:This judgment addresses the refusal of a ‘No Objection Certificate’ under Rule 103 of the Explosive Rules, 2008. The court determines that public protests against quarrying activities do not independently justify rejection of the application. The prior judgments WP

(C) Nos.28007 and 29874 of 2023 are referenced for legal principles. The refusal of the application is set aside, and the matter is remanded for fresh consideration within a month.

Table of Content
1. public protest does not justify rejection of license applications. (Para 1 , 2)
2. the refusal of the application was unsustainable; case is remanded for reconsideration. (Para 3)

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 18th day of June, 2024 Petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P3 order of the 1st respondent-Additional District Magistrate, which refused petitioner's application for ‘No Objection Certificate’ for LE-3 license to establish an explosives magazine in terms of Rule 103 of the Explosive Rules , 2008. The sole reason stated in Ext.P3 for rejection is the alleged public protest against quarrying activities in the area.

2. Taking note of a similar fact situation, this Court has already disposed of two writ petitions namely WP(C) Nos.28007 and 29874 of 2023, wherein the inter-play of Rules 103 and 107, the extent to which public interest can be looked into, and the impact of Rule 103 (3) (b) are discussed in detail.

3. In the light of the dictum laid down in those decisions, refusal of petitioner's application for ‘No Objection Certificate’ for an explosives magazine cannot be dismissed only for the reason that there is public protest as against the quarrying activities in the area. Needless to say that the public protest in respect of quarrying activities and the protest, if any, in respect of the explosives magazine has to be dealt with separately and independently. Public protest as against the quarrying activities is no ground for refusing an application for ‘No Objection Certificate’ for establishing an explosives magazine.

In the circumstances, Ext.P3 cannot be sustained and the same is hereby set aside. The matter will be considered afresh by the respondent-Additional District Magistrate in accordance with law and in the light of the law laid down in WP(C) Nos.28007 and 29874 of 2023, and as also this judgment, within a period of one month from the date of copy of this judgment. The petitioner will produce a copy of this judgment, as also, the judgments in WP(C) Nos.28007 and 29874 of 2023 before the respondent-Additional District Magistrate, for necessary compliance.

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top