Kerala High Court
K. Gopinathan vs State Of Kerala on 11 April, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM
THURSDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 22ND CHAITHRA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 14668 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
K. GOPINATHAN
AGED 92 YEARS
S/O. KOCHUKRISHNAN CHANNAR SECRETARY, OCHIRA TEMPLE
ADMINISTRATION BOARD REGISTRATION NO. Q82/59, OCHIRA P.O
KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 690526 RESIDING AT SREE RANGAM,
PUTHUPALLY P.O,, PIN - 690527
BY ADVS.
B.RENJITHKUMAR
CLARA SHERIN FRANCIS
SANGEERTHANA M.
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691013
3 ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE
COLLECTORATE, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691013
4 DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF
KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691001
5 TAHSILDAR
KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM DISTRICT,, PIN - 690518
6 STATION HOUSE OFFICER
OCHIRA POLICE STATION, OCHIRA, KOLLAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 690526
7 DISTRICT FIRE OFFICER
KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691001
8 THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA
THROUGH THE DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
BY ADV DEEPU LAL MOHAN
OTHER PRESENT:
GP - Ajith viswanathan
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
11.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C). No.14668 of 2024 :2:
VIJU ABRAHAM, J.
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
W.P.(C) No.14668 of 2024
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Dated this the 11th day of April, 2024
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction to the 3rd respondent to consider Ext.P2 application for renewal of Ext.P1 licence within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.
2. The petitioner is the elected Secretary of Ochira Temple Administration Board constituted for the administration of the 'Para Brahma Temple, Ochira. The 3rd respondent has issued an explosive licence to the petitioner for conducting 'vedy vazhipadu' in the said temple as per Ext.P1, for a period of three years. The term of the said licence got expired on 31.03.2023, however, on 03.03.2023 the petitioner has submitted Ext.P2 application before the 3rd respondent District Collector for renewal of the licence. Along with Ext.P2, necessary fee for renewal of license was also remitted by the petitioner as is evident from Ext.P3. The grievance raised by the petitioner is that Ext.P2 application has not been considered till date.
3. The learned Government Pleader upon instructions submitted that the authority to renew the licence has been W.P.(C). No.14668 of 2024 :3: designated as the Nodal Officer of the MCC and Law & Order of the District and it is not possible to conduct further procedures like site inspection & hearing related to transfer & renewal of the licence and that is the reason for delay in considering the application. A statement has been filed by the 8 th respondent on the very same line.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that he has submitted the application for renewal of licence before the expiry of the licence and going by Rule 112(5) of the Explosive Rules, if the application for renewal reaches the renewing or licensing authority on or before the date of expiry, the licence shall be deemed to be in force until such date as the licensing authority renews the licence or until an intimation that the renewal of the licence is refused has been communicated to the applicant. Based on the deeming provision in the said rule the petitioner would submit that he is entitled to conduct 'vedy vazhipadu'.
5. The declaration of election etc., cannot be a reason for not considering an application for renewal of licence as it is the statutory duty of the 3rd respondent and an activity of routine nature. Therefore, there will be a direction to the 3 rd respondent to take up Ext.P2 application and dispose of the same in accordance W.P.(C). No.14668 of 2024 :4: with law, at the earliest, at any rate within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is made clear that the petitioner would be entitled for the benefit of Rule 112(5) of the Explosive Rules, if the application has been submitted by the petitioner before the 3rd respondent before the expiry of the term of licence and that the same has not been considered and disposed of and intimated to the petitioner.
Sd/-
VIJU ABRAHAM JUDGE sm/ W.P.(C). No.14668 of 2024 :5: APPENDIX OF WP(C) 14668/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit-P1 TRUE COPY OF THE EXPLOSIVE LICENCE ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER ON 18.5.2018 AND THE SAME RENEWED ON 29.9.2021 FOR A PERIOD OF 3 YEARS Exhibi-P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED TO THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM FOR RENEWAL OF THE SAID LICENCE BY THE PETITIONER ON 3.3.2023 Exhibit-P3 TRUE COPY OF THE E-CHALLAN SHOWING THE REMITTANCE OF FEE OF RS. 6,100/- FOR RENEWAL OF LICENCE DATED 2.5.2023 RESPONDENT ANNEXURES Annexure R8(a) The true copy of letter No. DCKLM/1535/2023-M7 dated 08-04-2024 addressed by the 2nd Respondent to the Chief Electoral Officer, Kerala