Back
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
JAGADAMMA P – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C)/10157/2022
Writ - Licensing - Explosives Rules 2008 - Sections Cited: LE-5 License - The court analyzed the provisions of the Explosives Rules 2008 in relation to licensing for possession and sale of manufactured fireworks, emphasizing the importance of considering recommendations from relevant authorities while arriving at a decision.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner applied for a licensing to possess and sell 100 kg of manufactured fireworks after having previously received licenses for 500 kg of Chinese crackers. The petitioner's application was denied based on reports indicating objections from neighbors, leading to a legal challenge.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the 2nd respondent failed to properly consider the recommendations from relevant authorities before denying the licensing application. The decision-making process lacked proper consideration of prior approvals and required the 2nd respondent to reconsider the request, granting the petitioner an opportunity to present their case.
Issues: Whether the denial of the petitioner's application for a LE-5 license to sell 100 kg of manufactured fireworks was justified despite previous licensing for a larger quantity.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the administrative authority must consider all relevant recommendations and give a fair hearing to the applicant, especially when prior licenses had been granted under similar circumstances.
Final Decision: The court set aside the 2nd respondent's denial and directed a reconsideration of the application within two months, with the petitioner being given a chance to be heard.
JUDGMENT
The above writ petition is filed with following prayers:
“(i) To call for the records leading to Ext.P12 order from the 2nd respondent and Ext.P13 report of the 5th respondent and issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing Ext.P12 order of the 2nd respondent and Ext.P13 report of the 5th respondent adversely against the petitioner to deny license to possess and sale of 100 kgms manufactured fireworks in addition to the quantity of Explosives permitted in Ext.P6 and P7 License.
(ii) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 2nd respondent to grant LE-5 license under Explosives Rules 2008 to the petitioner to possess and sale of 100 Kgms of manufactured Fire Works in addition to the quantity of Explosives granted to the petitioner in Ext.P6 and P7 license within a stipulated time as directed by this Hon’ble Court notwithstanding anything contained in Ext.P13 adverse report of the 5th respondent.
(iii) To declare that the petitioner is entitled to get LE-5 license from the 2nd respondent under Explosives Rules
2008 for possession and sale of 100 Kgms manufactured Fire Works in additional to the quantity of Explosives granted to the petitioner in Ext.P6 and P7 license.
(iv) Issue such other reliefs as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”
(sic)
2. Challenging Ext.P12 order of the 2nd respondent denying licence to possess and sale of 100 kgm manufactured fireworks in addition to the quantity of explosives permitted in Exts.P6 and P7 licences, this writ petition is filed. The petitioner submitted Ext.P1 application along with relevant documents before the 2nd respondent to stock and sell 100 kgm manufactured fireworks and 500 kg chinese crackers and sparkles in the building bearing Door No.CP.20/4 of Chavara Grama Panchayat situated in Sy.No.94/2-2 of Chavara Village after obtaining lease agreement with the landlord. It is the case of the petitioner that respondents 3 to 5 recommended the application as per Exts.P2 to P4, however, the 6th respondent submitted report stating that neighbouring property owners raised objection. It is the case of the petitioner that the 2nd respondent without considering the material aspect, rejected the licence. The petitioner challenged the proceedings in WP(C) No.29024 of 2020 which resulted in Ext.P5 judgment. This Court set aside the impugned order and directed the 2nd respondent to pass orders in the application afresh, within four weeks. Thereafter, as directed by this Court in Ext.P5 judgment, the 2nd respondent passed Ext.P6 order and Ext.P7 licence to the petitioner and Form LE-5 to the petitioner to posses and sell 500 kg chinese crackers and sparkles. It is the specific case of the petitioner that the 2nd respondent not issued licence to possess and sale 100 kg manufactured fireworks in Exts.P6 and P7. The petitioner submitted Ext.P8 application along with Ext.P9 challan before the 2nd respondent requesting to issue licence to the petitioner to possess and sale 100 kg manufactured fireworks in addition to Exts.P6 and P7. Thereafter, the petitioner again filed WP(C) No.26994 of 2021, which resulted Ext.P11 judgment directing the 2nd respondent to take up the representation and applications and to consider the same in accordance with law within one month. It is the case of the petitioner that the 2nd respondent, on misconception of facts and law, declined the application by Ext.P12 order on flimsy grounds on the basis of Ext.P13 adverse report of the 5th respondent. It is the case of the petitioner that the 2nd respondent ought to have found that respondents 3 to 6 already recommended the applications as per Exts.P2 to P4 and licence was granted to petitioner as per Exts.P6 and P7 to possess and sell 500 kg chinese crackers and the licence was granted under LE5. It is also the case of the petitioner that the same is situation exist in the licensed premises for
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
