Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

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, 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 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.

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 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 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:

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 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."