Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

M.P.Jose vs The District Collector on 27 January, 2016

Author: Shaji P. Chaly

Bench: Shaji P.Chaly

        

 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                             PRESENT:

                          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

                 MONDAY,THE 3RD DAY OF APRIL 2017/13TH CHAITHRA, 1939

                                    WP(C).No. 9664 of 2017 (G)
                                       ---------------------------


PETITIONER :
---------------------


                M.P.JOSE,
                AGED 45 YEARS, S/O.PURAVATH,
                MADATHIKUDIYIL HOUSE,
                KIGINIMATTOM P.O, KOLENCHERY,
                ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.


                      BY SRI.K.P.DANDAPANI,SENIOR ADVOCATE
                          ADV. SRI.SAJEEV KUMAR K.GOPAL


RESPONDENT(S):
----------------------------


        1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
            (DISTRICT MAGISTRATE), MALAPPURAM - 676 505.

        2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
            OFFICE OF THE SUPDT. OF POLICE,
            MALAPPURAM - 676 505

        3. THE TAHSILDAR,
            PERINTHALMANNA-679 322

        4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
            ARAKKUPARAMBU-679 322


                     R1 TO R4 BY SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. K.R.DEEPA


            THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
             ON 03-04-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
             FOLLOWING:


sts

WP(C).No. 9664 of 2017 (G)
---------------------------------------

                                             APPENDIX

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
---------------------------------------

P1            TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN
              WPC.NO. 20548 OF 2016

P2            TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 27/1/2016

P3            TRUE COPY OF THE NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE VIDE NUMBER
              E7/11920/D.DIS DATED 01/2/2016

P4            TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE INDUSTRIAL
              EXPLOSIVES PRIVATE LIMITED, NAGPUR.

P5            TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR LICENSE IN FORM AE-3

P6            TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT
              DATED 13/3/2017

P7            TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 20/03/2017 SUBMITTED BY
              THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT




RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:                              NIL
------------------------------------------




                                                      /TRUE COPY/


                                                      P.A.TO JUDGE




sts



                          SHAJI P. CHALY, J.
                  -----------------------------------------------
                    W.P.(C). No.9664 of 2017
              -----------------------------------------------
              Dated this the 3rd day of April, 2017



                               JUDGMENT

Petitioner was issued with a No Objection Certificate for obtaining Explosive Licence by the 1st respondent, evident from Exts.P2 and P3, in accordance with rule 102 and 103 of Explosive Rules, 2008. According to the petitioner, based on Exts.P2 and P3, petitioner proceeded further for construction and also purchase of portable explosive magazine. He had also applied for necessary licence before the authority under rule 113 of the Rules. The said application is pending. However, all on a sudden and abruptly, 1st respondent reviewed Exts.P2 and P3 and cancelled the No Objection Certificate, evident from Ext.P6 dated 13.3.2017, which according to the petitioner, is without providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and without assigning sufficient reasons as to why the said No Objection Certificate was cancelled. These are the background facts projected by the petitioner to secure the reliefs sought for in the writ petition.

2. Heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, W.P.(C). No.9664 of 2017 2 learned Senior Government Pleader and perused the documents on record and the pleadings put forth by the petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner predominantly contended that, a statutory hearing is provided under proviso to rule 115(1)(c) before any cancellation of NOC granted to the petitioner. Learned Senior Government Pleader on instructions submitted that, such a course was not be adopted by the statutory authority. Needless to say, since there is a statutory provision for providing a hearing, violation of the same cannot be viewed lightly. That being the situation, Ext.P6 order is passed by the 1st respondent in absolute violation of the principles of natural justice. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion, Ext.P6 order passed transforms itself into an arbitrary and illegal action. Consequentially, I have no hesitation to quash Ext.P6. Accordingly I do so.

4. Therefore, there will be a direction to the 1st respondent to issue sufficient notice to the petitioner providing sufficient time for filing objection, hear the petitioner and arrive at a finality in respect of the action pertaining to Ext.P6 within a W.P.(C). No.9664 of 2017 3 month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

Writ petition is allowed accordingly.

Sd/-

SHAJI P. CHALY JUDGE smv 4.4.2017