Mahilamony Gireesh v. The District Collector, Alappuzha and Others

## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** # **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 10[TH] 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, PIN688001.` - `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 ``` 6ADDL. 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 10[th ] 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 1[st] 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 2[nd] 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, -4- 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 -5- W.P.(C). No. 21291 of 2021 petitioner that after finding that the defects are cured, which is evident from Ext-P10, the 1[st] 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 6[th] 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 -6- 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 6[th] respondent. The 6[th] 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 6[th] 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 -7- 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 6[th] respondent submitted that she has absolutely no objection in continuing the petitioner’s fire works manufacturing unit. The counsel submitted that the 6[th] 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 6[th] 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 -8- 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 6[th] respondent in the prohibited distance. The 6[th] 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 വില്ലേ ജിലെ സർവ്വെ നമ്പർ 427132-5 ൽ 231 ആർസ് സ്ഥാവര വസ്തുക്കളുടെയും രേഖയിൽ ഉൾപ്പെട്ടിട്ടുള്ള മാരാരിക്കുളം തെ കക പഞ്ചായത്തിലെ 10/16 എയിലുള്ള ഒരു റെസിഡൻഷ്യൽ കെ ട്ടിടത്തിന്റെയും ഉടമ ഞാനാണ്. പ്രസ് വസ്തുവിൽ സ്ഥിതിചെ യ്യുന്ന കെ ട്ടിടത്തിലാണ് ഞാനും എന്റെ കുടുംബാംഗങ്ങളും താമസിക്കുന്നത്. 12.07.2018 ലെ രജിസ്റ്റർ ചെ യ്ത രേഖയിലൂടെ ഞാൻ പ്രസ് പ്രപ്രോപ്പർട്ടി വാങ്ങി. 2. എന്റെ അറിവിൽ, മേൽപ്പറഞ്ഞ റെസിഡൻഷ്യൽ കെ ട്ടിടം നിർമ്മിച്ചതാണ്. മഹിളാമണി ഗിരീഷ് എന്ന വ്യക്തി W/o. ഗിരീഷ്, കൈ മ പറമ്പിൽ, തുമ്പമ്പോളി, ആലപ്പുഴ ജില്ല, 2014 മുതൽ പ്രദേശതത ഒരു ചെ റിയ പടക്ക നിർമ്മാണ യൂണിററ നടത്തുന്നു. ഞാൻ മേൽപ്പറഞ്ഞ വസ്തു വാങ്ങുന്നതിന് വളരെ മുമ്പുതന്നെ പ്രസ് യൂണിറ പ്രവർത്തിച്ചിരുന്നു. പ്രസ് യൂണിറ്റിന്റെ പ്രവർത്തനത്തെക്കുറിചച പൂർണ്ണമായി അറിഞ്ഞ ശേ ഷമാണ് ഞാൻ വസ്തു വാങ്ങിയത്. പ്രസ് യൂണിറ്റിന്റെ പ്രവർത്തനവുമായി ോ ബന്ധപ്പെടട എനിക്കും എന്റെ കുടുംബാംഗങ്ങൾക്കും എതിർപ്പ പരാതിയയോ ഇല്ല. 3. മേൽപ്പറഞ്ഞ മഹിളാമണി ഗിരീഷിന് അനുവദിച്ചിരുന്ന ലൈ സൻസ് ആലപ്പുഴ ജില്ലാ കളക്ടർ റദ്ദാക്കിയത് എന്റെ വീട് നിരരോധിത ദൂരത്താണ് എന്ന ഒറ്റക്കാരണത്താൽ ഈയടുത്താണ് ഞാൻ അറിഞ്ഞത്. ജില്ലാ കളക്ടറുടെ ഉത്തരവിൽ എന്റെ -9- W.P.(C). No. 21291 of 2021 ര് എന ഭർത്താവിന്റെ പേ അനിൽകുമാർ തെ റ്റായി ച കാണിച്ചിട്ടുണ്ടെന്നും അറിയാൻ കഴിഞ്ഞു. റദ്ദാക്കിയതിനെ ോദ്യം യ രള ചെ ത മേൽപ്പറഞ്ഞ മഹിളാമണി ഗിരീഷ് ബഹുമാനപ്പെട്ട കേ ഹൈ ക്കോടതിയിൽ WP (C) 21291/2021 ഫയൽ ചെ യ്തിട്ടുണ്ടെന്നും ഞാൻ മനസ്സിലാക്കി. യൂണിറ്റിന്റെ പ്രവർത്തനത്തെക്കുറിചച ഞാനും എന്റെ കുടുംബാംഗങ്ങളും ഒരിക്കലും പരാതി പറഞ്ഞിട്ടില്ല. ഈ യൂണിറ്റിന്റെ പ്രവർത്തനത്തിൽ ഞങ്ങൾകക എതിർപ്പില്ല. സത്യവാങ്മൂലം ബഹുമാനപ്പെട്ട കേ രള ഹൈ ക്കോടതിയിൽ 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_ -10- 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, residential are come into existence if buildings 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 -11- 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 1[st] respondent. For facilitating the 1[st] 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 6[th] 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 -12- W.P.(C). No. 21291 of 2021 here is a case where the 6[th] 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 1[st] respondent is directed to reconsider the matter, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the additional 6[th] 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 1[st] respondent is renewing the licence, an affidavit from the 6[th] respondent will be obtained. Sd/- **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE** das -13- 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 P5A TRUE COPY OF THE PROFORMA REPORT GIVEN BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MANNANCHERRY Exhibit P6A 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 P7A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 24.02.2021 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER ``` ``` Exhibit P8A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 27.02.2021 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE OFFICE OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT Exhibit P9A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 2.3.2021 IN W.P.(C)NO.5360/2021. Exhibit P10A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 25.3.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. Exhibit P11A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24.9.2021 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. ``` -14- W.P.(C). No. 21291 of 2021 ``` Exhibit P12A TRUE COPY OF TABLE 4 AND TABLE 5 OF SCHEDULE VIII OF THE EXPLOSIVE RULES, 2008. EXHIBIT P13ORIGINAL NOTARIZED AFFIDAVIT DATED 27.11.2021 SWORN TO BY DHANYA SURESH, W/O.SURESH N.P. ```