JUDGMENT

Petitioner who had been initially granted a license to possess and sell fire works as provided under the Explosives Act and Rules had on its expiry applied for renewal thereof. The said application for renewal was rejected by respondent no.1 as revealed from Ext.P8 order dated, November 25, 2002.

2. The primary objection raised by the competent authority against grant of renewal was that the shed constructed by the petitioner for the purpose of storing the fire works was hardly 6.60 Mtrs. away from the residence of Sri.Rajappan Achary, respondent no.5 herein, and that on the face of the objection raised by Sri.Rajappan Achary it may not be permissible under law to renew the license. Respondent no.1 had also referred to the report submitted by the Revenue Divisional Officer concerned, in this regard. The other reason for rejection of the application for renewal was that it was not submitted within the prescribed time limit.

3. Anyhow, I do not propose to deal with the legality and propriety of Ext.P8 order passed by respondent no.1 which is impugned in this writ petition. Learned counsel submits that petitioner is prepared to approach the Appellate Authority for redressal o