Kerala High Court
Mahilamony Gireesh vs The District Collector on 10 August, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 19TH SRAVANA,
1944
WP(C) NO. 21291 OF 2021
PETITIONER:
MAHILAMONY GIREESH
AGED 55 YEARS
W/O.GIREESH, KAIMA PARAMBIL,
THUMPOLI, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
GEORGE SEBASTIAN
ARUN LUCKOSE ABRAHAM
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
ALAPPUZHA, COLLECTORATE,
CIVIL STATION WARD, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN-
688001.
2 THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, ALAPPUZHA,
VELIYANAD ROAD, KIDANGAMPARAMP, THATHAMPALLY,
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN-688013.
3 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
MANNANCHERRY POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT,
PIN-688538.
4 THE TAHSILDAR,
AMBALAPPUZHA TALUK OFFICE, ALAPPUZHA
DISTRICT,PIN-688561.
5 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
KALAVOOR VILLAGE OFFICE,
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT PIN-688522.
-2-
W.P.(C). No. 21291 of 2021
6 ADDL. R6.DHANYA SURESH
AGED 36 YEARS, W/O. SURESH,
NAMBUKULANGARA VELI HOUSE, KALAVOOR.P.O.,
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN-688522.
[ADDL.R6 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 9-6-2022
IN IA 2/2022 IN WP(C)].
BY ADVS.
GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.VIDYA KURIAKOSE
JOHNSON K.KURIEN FOR ADDITIONAL R6
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 10.08.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
W.P.(C). No. 21291 of 2021
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
======================================================
W.P.(C) No. 21291 of 2021
=============================================================
Dated this the 10th day of August, 2022
JUDGMENT
The above writ petition is filed with following prayers:
"i. To issue a certiorari calling for the records leading to
Ext P11 and to quash the same.
ii. To direct the 1st respondent to renew Ext-P1 license as
prayed for.
iii. To direct the respondents not to interfere with the
functioning of the fireworks manufacturing unit of
petitioner and to prevent them from taking any coercive
action against the petitioner's unit.
iv. To grant such other reliefs as this Honourable Court
may deem fit and proper." (sic)
2. The petitioner is a licensee under the Explosives
Rules since the year 2014. Exhibit P1 is the license dated
23.06.2014 issued by the 2nd respondent. As per Exhibit P1, the
petitioner obtained licence to manufacture 5 kilo grams of fire
works like Chinese Crackers, Palm Leaf Crackers, Flower Pot,
W.P.(C). No. 21291 of 2021
Chakkram etc. Subsequently the same was renewed till
31.03.2016 by Exhibit P2. Again the license was renewed to
31.03.2017. Again the license was renewed till 31.03.2020,
which can be seen from the endorsement in the 1 st page of
Exhibit P1. From 31.03.2020, the petitioner had sought for
renewing the license for a period of 3 years. While so, Ext.P7
notice is issued to the petitioner stating that the Unit of the
petitioner is unhygienic and some useless articles are stored in
the unit and the platform is not proper and that the fencing is
not in a proper manner and further steps in the application will
be done after curing those defects. The petitioner had preferred
Ext-P8 reply. Since the renewal application was not considered,
the petitioner preferred W.P.(C) 5360/2021 before this Court
seeking a direction to consider the application for renewal. By
Ext.P9 interim order, this Court directed consideration of the
renewal application, if the defects are cured. It is the case of the
W.P.(C). No. 21291 of 2021
petitioner that after finding that the defects are cured, which is
evident from Ext-P10, the 1st respondent considered the renewal
application and cancelled the license itself by Ext-P11 order,
without hearing the petitioner and without issuing any notice on
the question of cancellation. The main reason stated for
cancellation is that a residential building is situated at a distance
of 35 meters from the unit and the prohibited distance is 45
meters. Aggrieved by the cancellation of licence, this writ
petition.
3. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the learned
Government Pleader. I also heard the counsel appearing for the
additional 6th respondent.
4. The counsel for the petitioner reiterated his
contentions. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that when
the renewal application is submitted, the licence itself is
cancelled without following the procedure prescribed in the
W.P.(C). No. 21291 of 2021
rules. The counsel also submitted that the only reason
mentioned in Ext.P11 to cancel the licence is that there is a
residential house owned by the 6th respondent. The 6th
respondent filed an affidavit before this Court stating that she
purchased the property with the building in 2018 and that is
subsequent to the licence issued to the petitioner. The counsel
submitted that the 6th respondent also submitted in the affidavit
that she has no problem in continuing the unit of the petitioner
and she purchased the property after knowing the consequences.
5. The Government Pleader seriously opposes the
prayers in this writ petition. The Government Pleader relied on
the judgment of this Court in Dasan v. State of Kerala and
others [2018 KHC 3958]. The Government Pleader submitted
that merely because the petitioner raised a contention that the
residential building has come into existence after the licence
was granted, the statutory rules cannot be violated. The
W.P.(C). No. 21291 of 2021
Government Pleader also submitted that while granting licence
under the Explosives Rules, the authorities will bear in mind
that the conduct may lead to irreparable loss and injuries to
human life and environment. In such circumstances, Ext.P11 is
issued.
6. The counsel appearing for the 6th respondent
submitted that she has absolutely no objection in continuing the
petitioner's fire works manufacturing unit. The counsel
submitted that the 6th respondent purchased the property after
knowing about the existence of the unit in the premises and
therefore, she has no objection in continuing the unit.
7. This Court considered the contentions of the
petitioner and the Government Pleader. I also perused the
affidavit filed by the 6th respondent. It is an admitted fact that
the petitioner is having the licence under the Explosives Rules
from 2014 onwards. It is also an admitted fact that the main
W.P.(C). No. 21291 of 2021
reason for cancelling the licence as per Ext.P11 is the existence
of the residential house of the 6th respondent in the prohibited
distance. The 6th respondent sworn an affidavit before this
Court, which is produced as Ext.P13 in the reply affidavit. It
will be better to extract the relevant portion of the affidavit
hereunder:
"ആലപ്പുഴ ജില്ലയിലെ കലവൂർ വില്ലേജിലെ സർവ്വെ നമ്പർ 42713-
2-5 ൽ 231 ആർസ് സ്ഥാവര വസ്തുക്കളുടെയും രേഖയിൽ
ഉൾപ്പെട്ടിട്ടുള്ള മാരാരിക്കുളം തെക്ക് പഞ്ചായത്തിലെ 10/16
എയിലുള്ള ഒരു റെസിഡൻഷ്യൽ കെട്ടിടത്തിന്റെയും ഉടമ
ഞാനാണ്. പ്രസ്തുത വസ്തുവിൽ സ്ഥിതിചെയ്യുന്ന കെട്ടിടത്തിലാണ്
ഞാനും എന്റെ കുടുംബാംഗങ്ങളും താമസിക്കുന്നത്. 12.07.2018 ലെ
രജിസ്റ്റർ ചെയ്ത രേഖയിലൂടെ ഞാൻ പ്രസ്തുത പ്രോപ്പർട്ടി വാങ്ങി.
2. എന്റെ അറിവിൽ, മേൽപ്പറഞ്ഞ റെസിഡൻഷ്യൽ കെട്ടിടം
നിർമ്മിച്ചതാണ്. മഹിളാമണി ഗിരീഷ് എന്ന വ്യക്തി W/o. ഗിരീഷ്,
കൈമ പറമ്പിൽ, തുമ്പോളി, ആലപ്പുഴ ജില്ല, 2014 മുതൽ
പ്രദേശത്ത് ഒരു ചെറിയ പടക്ക നിർമ്മാണ യൂണിറ്റ് നടത്തുന്നു.
ഞാൻ മേൽപ്പറഞ്ഞ വസ്തു വാങ്ങുന്നതിന് വളരെ മുമ്പുതന്നെ പ്രസ്തുത
യൂണിറ്റ് പ്രവർത്തിച്ചിരുന്നു. പ്രസ്തുത യൂണിറ്റിന്റെ
പ്രവർത്തനത്തെക്കുറിച്ച് പൂർണ്ണമായി അറിഞ്ഞ ശേഷമാണ് ഞാൻ
വസ്തു വാങ്ങിയത്. പ്രസ്തുത യൂണിറ്റിന്റെ പ്രവർത്തനവുമായി
ബന്ധപ്പെട്ട് എനിക്കും എന്റെ കുടുംബാംഗങ്ങൾക്കും എതിർപ്പോ
പരാതിയോ ഇല്ല.
3. മേൽപ്പറഞ്ഞ മഹിളാമണി ഗിരീഷിന് അനുവദിച്ചിരുന്ന
ലൈസൻസ് ആലപ്പുഴ ജില്ലാ കളക്ടർ റദ്ദാക്കിയത് എന്റെ വീട്
നിരോധിത ദൂരത്താണ് എന്ന ഒറ്റക്കാരണത്താൽ ഈയടുത്താണ്
ഞാൻ അറിഞ്ഞത്. ജില്ലാ കളക്ടറുടെ ഉത്തരവിൽ എന്റെ
W.P.(C). No. 21291 of 2021
ഭർത്താവിന്റെ പേര് അനിൽകുമാർ എന്ന് തെറ്റായി
കാണിച്ചിട്ടുണ്ടെന്നും അറിയാൻ കഴിഞ്ഞു. റദ്ദാക്കിയതിനെ ചോദ്യം
ചെയ്ത് മേൽപ്പറഞ്ഞ മഹിളാമണി ഗിരീഷ് ബഹുമാനപ്പെട്ട കേരള
ഹൈക്കോടതിയിൽ WP (C) 21291/2021 ഫയൽ ചെയ്തിട്ടുണ്ടെന്നും
ഞാൻ മനസ്സിലാക്കി. യൂണിറ്റിന്റെ പ്രവർത്തനത്തെക്കുറിച്ച് ഞാനും
എന്റെ കുടുംബാംഗങ്ങളും ഒരിക്കലും പരാതി പറഞ്ഞിട്ടില്ല.
യൂണിറ്റിന്റെ പ്രവർത്തനത്തിൽ ഞങ്ങൾക്ക് എതിർപ്പില്ല. ഈ
സത്യവാങ്മൂലം ബഹുമാനപ്പെട്ട കേരള ഹൈക്കോടതിയിൽ
ഹാജരാക്കാൻ തയ്യാറാക്കിയതാണ്."
8. In the affidavit, it is clearly stated that she purchased
the property after knowing that such a unit is there in the
premises. A reading of the affidavit would show that the 6 th
respondent is ready to face the consequence if any mishap
happened.
9. The Government Pleader relied on the judgment of
this Court in Dasan's case (supra). It will be better to extract
the relevant paragraph of the judgment here:
"13. As per the provisions of Rule 86, petitioner is also
liable to maintain safety distance specified in Schedule
VII and conditions of the licence, as the case may be.
The findings contained under Exts.P8 and P9 would
show that the premises was not kept clean and tidy and
has not been maintained periodically. Merely because
W.P.(C). No. 21291 of 2021
petitioner has rectified the defects subsequent to the
receipt of notice, that alone will not suffice the situation,
since as per the Rules, throughout, the premises has to
be kept clean and tidy, enabling periodical inspection by
the authorities. Moreover, merely because petitioner
raised a contention that the residential buildings have
come into existence after the licence was granted to the
petitioner, it is not an enabling circumstance for the
petitioner for carrying on the activity. There is no
enabling provision under the Act or Rules permitting the
petitioner to carry on with the manufacturing activities,
if residential buildings are come into existence
subsequent to the issuance of licence. Be it noted, no
lethargy, negligence, laches or laxity can be shown by a
licensee under the Explosives Rules, bearing in mind
such conduct may lead to irreparable loss and injuries
to human life and environment."
10. It is true that this Court observed in the above
judgment that merely because the petitioner in that case raised a
contention that the residential building has come into existence
after the licence was granted to the petitioner, it is not an
enabling circumstance to the petitioner for carrying on the
activities. But here is a case where the purchaser herself
appeared before this Court and filed an affidavit to the effect
W.P.(C). No. 21291 of 2021
that she has no problem in continuing the fire works
manufacturing unit in that premises. It is also stated that she
purchased the property subsequent to the licence issued to the
petitioner in this case and after knowing that such a unit is
functioning in that area. If a person purchases a property after
knowing that a fire works manufacturing unit is there nearby, it
will be injustice to the petitioner, if the licence is rejected for
that reason alone. Therefore, according to me, this is a matter
to be reconsidered by the 1st respondent. For facilitating the 1st
respondent to reconsider the matter, the impugned order can be
set aside. If the renewal is granted, the 1 st respondent will get
an affidavit from the 6th respondent to the effect that the
Government or the authorities are not responsible, if any
mishap is happened. The same should be kept in the file.
11. I make it clear that this need not be treated as a
precedent and this Court made the observations only because
W.P.(C). No. 21291 of 2021
here is a case where the 6th respondent purchased the property
after knowing that there is a fire works manufacturing unit
functioning and she is ready to face the consequences.
Therefore, this writ petition is allowed in the following
manner:
1. Ext.P11 is set aside.
2. The 1st respondent is directed to reconsider the
matter, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the
petitioner and the additional 6th respondent, as
expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one
month from the date of receipt of a copy of this
judgment.
3. I make it clear that, if the 1st respondent is renewing
the licence, an affidavit from the 6th respondent will be
obtained.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JUDGE
das
W.P.(C). No. 21291 of 2021
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 21291/2021
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE LICENSE DATED
23.06.2014 ISSUED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
16.07.2015 PASSED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE CHALAN DATED
23.01.2020 SHOWING PAYMENT OF THE
NECESSARY FESS FOR RENEWAL OF THE
EXPLOSIVE LICENSE
Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROFORMA REPORT
SUBMITTED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT DATED
28.02.2020
Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROFORMA REPORT
GIVEN BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
MANNANCHERRY
Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED
10.03.2020 ALONG WITH THE PROFORMA
REPORT GIVEN BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO
THE OFFICE OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT
Exhibit P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED
24.02.2021 ISSUED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER
Exhibit P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED
27.02.2021 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO
THE OFFICE OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT
Exhibit P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
2.3.2021 IN W.P.(C)NO.5360/2021.
Exhibit P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED
25.3.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE 5TH
RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P11 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
24.9.2021 PASSED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT.
W.P.(C). No. 21291 of 2021
Exhibit P12 A TRUE COPY OF TABLE 4 AND TABLE 5 OF
SCHEDULE VIII OF THE EXPLOSIVE RULES,
2008.
EXHIBIT P13 ORIGINAL NOTARIZED AFFIDAVIT DATED
27.11.2021 SWORN TO BY DHANYA SURESH,
W/O.SURESH N.P.
