Kerala High Court

S. Nagaraj vs State Of Kerala on 12 April, 2024

WP(C) No.15056/2024 1/5

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM
Friday, the 12th day of April 2024 / 23rd Chaithra, 1946
WP(C) NO. 15056 OF 2024(F)
PETITIONERS:

1. S.NAGARAJ, AGED 48 YEARS, SON OF SUBBURAJ, PARTNER, M/S KANNAN
CRACKERS, 3/1232/20, SRI THIRUPATHI NAGAR, NARANAPURAM ROAD,
PARAIPATTI, VISWANATHAM VILLAGE, SIVAKASI, VIRUDHUNAGAR DISTRICT,
TAMILNADU, PIN - 626189
2. GEORGE ALEXANDER, AGED 37 YEARS, SON OF JAYARAJ, 307/48, KNG PUDUR,
GN MILLS PO, COIMBATORE, PIN - 641029

RESPONDENTS:

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE HOME
DEPARTMENT, GROUND FLOOR,MAIN BLOCK,SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695001
2. STATE POLICE CHIEF, STATE POLICE CHIEF HEADQUARTERS,VELLAYAMBALAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695010
3. THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF,THRISSUR, KATTUNGACHIRA,IRINJALAKKUDA
THRISSUR, PIN - 680125
4. THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, MALAPPURAM, 23RP+XR&,UP HILL,
MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676505
5. THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, KOZHIKODE ,PAVAMANI ROAD,TAZHEKKOD,
KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673004
6. THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, KANNUR, TALAP,KANNUR,KERALA, PIN - 670002
7. ADDL.R7.THE DEPUTY CHIEF CONTROLLER OF EXPLOSIVES, C2-III FLOOR, CGO
COMPLEX, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM * IS SUO MOTU IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER
DATED 12.04.2024 IN WP(C)15056/2024.

Writ petition (civil) praying inter alia that in the circumstances
stated in the affidavit filed along with the WP(C) the High Court be
pleased to issue an interim order restraining the Station House Officers
operating under the jurisdiction and administrative direction of
respondents 3 to 6 from interfering with the lawful transportation and
delivery of fireworks to individuals who are authorized to possess
explosives in conformity with Rule 9(5) in conjunction with Rule
10(4)(a)(ii) of the Explosives Rules, 2008, in the interest of justice.

This petition coming on for admission upon perusing the petition and
the affidavit filed in support of WP(C) and upon hearing the arguments of
M/S.PRAVEEN.H., G.HARIHARAN, K.S.SMITHA, AMAL DEV D, SNEHA M.S. & ABHIJITH
E.R., Advocates for the petitioners and of GOVERNMENT PLEADER for
respondents 1 to 6 and of SRI.T.C.KRISHNA, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL-IN-
CHARGE for Addl.Respondent 7, the court passed the following:
WP(C) No.15056/2024 2/5

VIJU ABRAHAM, J.
.................................................................
W.P (C) No.15056 of 2024
.................................................................
Dated this the 12th day of April, 2024

ORDER

Petitioner has approached this court seeking the following reliefs:

"(i) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order restraining the Station House Officers operating under the jurisdiction and administrative direction of respondents 3 to 6 from interfering with the lawful transportation and delivery of fireworks to individuals who are authorised to possess explosives in conformity with Rule 9(5) in conjunction with Rule 10(4)(a)(ii) of the Explosives Rules, 2008;

(ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the 1st and 2nd respondents, directing them to formulate and disseminate clear guidelines to all police personnel tasked with overseeing fireworks transportation, aimed at eliminating arbitrary and unjustified vehicle interdictions and ensuring compliance with established legal and safety protocols;

and

(iii) To pass such orders or reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the interest of justice."

2. It is averred that the 1st petitioner is the holder of Ext.P1 licence for the

possession and sale of fireworks from the licenced premises and 2 nd

petitioner is the registered owner of a goods carriage. The 1 st petitioner

dispatched a consignment of firecrackers to Kannur via 2 nd petitioner which

was seized by the Edakkad Police and Ext.P9 crime was registered and the

firecrackers which was seized was diffused based on the orders passed by

the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thallassery. In view of the intervening

circumstance of diffusing the firecrackers, the writ petition challenging the

seizure was closed as per Ext.P8 judgment leaving open the petitioner's

right to challenge the same. It is in the said circumstance that the present

writ petition has been filed so as to avoid such a situation in the future. It is

submitted that the fireworks have been transported under separate invoices

to prospective customers as evident from Ext.P10. The learned senior

counsel appearing for the petitioners would contend that fireworks is

classified as a lower-hazard explosive and that the rule does not provide that

for transportation of fireworks, no licence is required. The learned senior

counsel referred to Rules 9, 50, 51 and 63 of the Explosive Rules, 2008 in

support of his contention and contended that the petitioners are legally

entitled to conduct business in the sale of fireworks and also to transport

fireworks to prospective customers in Kerala.

3. Learned Government Pleader would submit that the licence granted to

the 1st petitioner as per Ext.P1 is only a license to possess and sell from a

shop, at any time, not exceeding 100 kgs of manufactured firework of Class

7, Division 2, Sub- division 2 and 500 kgs of Chorsa crackers or sparklers

and that the 1st petitioner is only permitted as per licence to sell from a shop,

of a particular quantity. A perusal of Ext.P9 FIR would reveal that he was

transporting almost 1166.650 kgs of fireworks which is much above the

quantity of fireworks which the 1st petitioner is entitled to possess and sell

from a shop. The contention of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the

petitioners is that the Act and the Rules does not prohibit the 1 st petitioner to

transport fireworks to prospective customers.

The relief sought by way of interim order is same as the main relief

sought in the writ petition. Further the question as to whether the 1 st

petitioner is only entitled to sell fireworks from a shop or is also entitled to

transport the fireworks to prospective customers, etc. are matters to be

decided while finally disposing of the writ petition. This Court is of the opinion

that the views of the Controller of Explosives is also necessary for the proper

disposal of the writ petition and since the said authority is not made a party

in this writ petition, the "Deputy Chief Controller of Explosives, C 2-III Floor,

CGO Complex, Kakkanad, Ernakulam" is suo motu impleaded as additional

7th respondent in the writ petition.

Therefore, the above writ petition is admitted. Government Pleader

takes notice for respondents 1 to 6. Adv.T.C.Krishna, DSG-in-charge takes

notice for additional 7th respondent. Petitioners to serve a copy of the writ

petition on learned DSG-in-charge. The official respondents including the

additional 7th respondent shall file their respective counter affidavits within a

period of two weeks from today.

Post on 24.05.2024. Sd/-


                                                              VIJU ABRAHAM
                                                                  JUDGE

          cks



12-04-2024                        /True Copy/                                Assistant Registrar


                       APPENDIX OF WP(C) 15056/2024
Exhibit P1            A TRUE COPY OF THE LICENSE NO. 225/2021 DATED

17/09/2021 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT REVENUE OFFICER, VIRUDHUNAGAR DISTRICT, SIVAKASI, TAMILNADU Exhibit P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 05/04/2024 PASSED IN

Exhibit P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO. 191/2024 OF EDAKKAD POLICE STATION, KANNUR DATED 01/04/2024 Exhibit P10 A TRUE COPY OF ONE SUCH INVOICE DATED 01/04/2024 IN THE NAME OF ATUL NARAYANAN LOCATED IN KOZHIKODE

12-04-2024 /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar