Kerala High Court
Seleena Thomas vs The District Collector on 28 May, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN
TUESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF MAY 2024/7TH JYAISHTA, 1946
WP(C) NO.12733 OF 2023
PETITIONER:
SELEENA THOMAS, AGED 67 YEARS, W/O.THOMAS,
VEMBIL HOUSE, PALISSERY, ANNAMANADA P.O.,
THRISSUR, PIN: 680 741.
BY ADVS.
K.R.VINOD
M.S.LETHA
NABIL KHADER
CHITHRA C.EDADAN
DEVIKA PRASAD
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE,
AYYANTHOLE THRISSUR, PIN - 680 003.
2 THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE,
OFFICE OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE,
AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR, PIN - 680003.
3 THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER,
OFFICE OF LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER,
REVENUE COMPLEX,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695009.
BY ADV. SRI.AJITH VISWANATHAN, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
28.05.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P(C) No.12733 of 2023
- 2 -
JUDGMENT
Dated, this the 28th May, 2024
Petitioner is the holder of Ext.P1 licence under the
Explosive Rules, 2008. Upon the expiry of Ext.P1,
petitioner filed application for renewal of the
same. When the same was pending consideration,
petitioner was issued with Ext.P2 order by the 2nd
respondent/Additional District Magistrate, as per
which, Ext.P1 licence was cancelled, allegedly for
the reason of finding a gas stove, which is within
the non-permissible limits of the place, where
explosives are licenced to be stocked.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would advance
two dimensional argument, the first being in the
context of violation of an opportunity of being
heard, which is mandated by the proviso to Rule
118(1) of the Explosives Rules, 2008. The second
argument advanced is that the gas stove has been
removed from very building itself.
- 3 -
3. It is not disputed before this Court as regards
the allegation that the petitioner was not given an
opportunity of being heard before passing Ext.P2. A
statement preferred by the 2nd respondent also does
not refer to any such opportunity afforded. Instead,
an opportunity of being heard was given at the
appellate stage.
4. For reason of not affording an opportunity of
being heard, Ext.P2 order will stand set aside.
Consequently, Ext.P3 will also stand set aside.
5. This Court is of the opinion that the interest
of justice would be amply served, if an inspection
is conducted by a competent officer authorised by
the 2nd respondent, on the licensed premises of the
petitioner to find out whether the gas stove, which
was found there, has been removed from the building,
as claimed for. If the said claim is found to be
true, it appears that there exists no impediment in
renewing Ext.P1 licence of the petitioner. After
- 4 -
inspection, the 2nd respondent will pass fresh orders
in the petitioner's application for renewal of
licence. The 2nd respondent is directed to comply
with the above directions within a period of one
month from the date of receipt of a copy of this
judgment.
This Writ Petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
C.JAYACHANDRAN, JUDGE
ww
- 5 -
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 12733/2023
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 THE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, THRISSUR
RENEWING THE EXPLOSIVE LICENCE OF THE
PETITIONER DATED 15.12.2015.
EXHIBIT P2 THE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 2 ND
RESPONDENT BY WHICH THE EXPLOSIVE LICENCE
OF THE PETITIONER STANDS CANCELLED DATED
29.01.2021.
EXHIBIT3 THE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 3RD
RESPONDENT DATED 20.03.2023, REJECTING
THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER.
