Kerala High Court
Jagadamma .P vs State Of Kerala on 22 July, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
THURSDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF JULY 2021/31ST ASHADHA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 29024 OF 2020
PETITIONER:
JAGADAMMA P.,
W/O.LATE MOHANADASAN PILLAI,
AGED 62 YEARS, VANI NIVAS,
KANNIMEL CHERRY, KILIKOLLUT P.O.,
KOLLAM-691 004.
BY ADV B.MOHANLAL
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
2 THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE,
COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION,
CUTCHERY P.O., KOLLAM-691 013.
3 THE CITY POLICE COMMISSIONER,
KOLLAM CITY, KOLLAM-691 001.
4 THE REGIONAL FIRE OFFICER,
REGIONAL FIRE OFFICE,
FIRE AND RESUCE SERVICES,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
5 THE TAHASILDAR, TALUK OFFICE,
KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM-690 573.
ADDL.6 ALEENA BEEVI, PRASANTH VEEDU,
CHAVARA MURI, CHAVARA P.O.,
KOLLAM-691 583.
WP(C) No.29024/2020
:2 :
ADDL.7 P.I.NAVAS, S/O.ALEEMA BEEVI,
PRASANTH VEEDU, CHAVARA MURI,
CHAVARA P.O., KOLLAM-691 583.
ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 25-01-2021 IN
IA NO.1/2021 IN WP(C)29024/2020
GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.G.RANJITA
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 22.07.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) No.29024/2020
:3 :
JUDGMENT
~~~~~~~~~
Dated this the 22nd day of July, 2021
The petitioner is before this Court challenging
Ext.P6. By Ext.P6, the application submitted by the petitioner
for grant of LE-5 licence under the Explosives Rules, 2008 has
been rejected by the 2nd respondent-Additional District
Magistrate.
2. Ext.P1 application submitted by the petitioner would
show that the petitioner has submitted the said application for
LE-5 Licence invoking Rule 113 of the Explosives Rules,
2008. Form AE-5 in which the petitioner has made application
is for Licence to possess and sale from a shop, manufactured
fireworks. The application submitted by the petitioner is for
compliance of Rule 83 of the Explosives Rules.
3. The application submitted by the petitioner has
been rejected stating that Rule 84(2) of the Rules, 2008
WP(C) No.29024/2020
mandates that the shop should be 50 metres far from
protected works. Since the application submitted by the
petitioner is for compliance of Rule 83, the rejection of the
application invoking Rule 84(2) which is applicable to
Temporary Shops, is not in order. Ext.P6 is liable to be set
aside on that ground.
The writ petition is therefore disposed of setting
aside Ext.P6. The 2nd respondent is directed to pass orders
on the application submitted by the petitioner afresh within a
period of four weeks. The petitioner is at liberty to make her
written submissions, if any, to the 2 nd respondent in the
meanwhile.
Sd/-
N. NAGARESH, JUDGE
aks/25.08.2021
WP(C) No.29024/2020
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 29024/2020
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED
20.07.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT NO.G2-
51858/2019/QC DATED 06.02.2020
SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT NO.C10-
13684/2019 DATED 06.02.2020 SUBMITTED
BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT NO.B-834/20
DATED 16.03.2020 SUBMITTED BY THE 4TH
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION
NO.DCKLM/12193/2020-M7 DATED 10.12.2020
ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE
PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER
NO.K.DIS./DCKLM/7307/2020/M7 DATED
17.12.2020 ISSUED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT.
