T.K. Krishnan v. Addl. District Magistrate, Kozhikode and Land Revenue Commissioner, Thiruvananthapuram

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN** **TUESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF AUGUST 2016/25TH SRAVANA, 1938** **WP(C).NO. 34622 OF 2008 (V)** **----------------------------** **PETITIONER(S):** **---------------** **T.K. KRISHNAN, THAZHE KUNIYIL HOUSE, ONCHIYAM, MADAPPALLY COLLEGE.P.O VADAKARA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.** **BY ADV. SRI.M.C.RATNAKARAN** **RESPONDENT(S):** **--------------** **1. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, KOZHIKODE.** **2. LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER, PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING, MUSEUM JUNCTION THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** ## **BYGOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI MOHAMMAD SAVAD** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16-08-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **WP(C).NO. 34622 OF 2008 (V)** ## **----------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF LICENCE NO.8/KDE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER AND THE ENDORSEMENT THEREON.** **EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24.1.2008 PASSED BY THE 1[ST] RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE 2[ND] RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30.09.2008 PASSED BY THE 2[ND] RESPONDENT AND RECEIVED ON 05.11.2008 BY THE PETITIONER.** ## **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL** **TRUE COPY** **P.S. TO JUDGE** ## **ANIL K.NARENDRAN, J.** ## **====================== W.P(C) No.34622 of 2008** **====================== Dated this the 16[th] day of August, 2016** ## **J U D G M E N T** The petitioner, who has been issued with Ext.P1 licence to manufacture explosives as provided under Rule 155 of the Explosives Rules, is before this Court in this writ petition seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Exts.P2 and P4 orders. 2. Pleadings and materials on record would show that on 15.01.2006 the Sub Inspector of Police, Edacherry had taken sample of three crackers from the shop of the petitioner and sent it for chemical examination. On an allegation that on such examination it was found that the sample of crackers contained pottassium chloride, ## **W.P(C) No.34622 of 2008** -: 2 :- which is a prohibited substance, a crime was registered against the petitioner initially under Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as Crime No.18 of 2006. Later, based on the report of the Chemical Examiner, offence under Section 5 of the Explosives Act has also been incorporated. 3. Based on the request made by the police, proceedings were initiated against the petitioner for suspending Ext.P1 licence, which resulted in Ext.P2 order dated 24.01.2008 of the 1[st] respondent. Aggrieved by Ext.P2 order, the petitioner filed Ext.P3 appeal before the 2[nd] respondent as provided under Section 6F of the Explosives Act. After considering the contentions raised by the petitioner, the 2[nd] respondent, by Ext.P4 order dated 30.09.2008, ## **W.P(C) No.34622 of 2008** -: 3 :- rejected Ext.P3 appeal by confirming Ext.P2 order of suspension. Feeling aggrieved by Exts.P2 and P4 orders, the petitioner is before this Court in this writ petition. 4. A reading of Exts.P2 and P4 orders would show that in the inspection conducted by the Sub Inspector of Police, Edacherry on 15.01.2006 sample of three crackers were taken from the petitioner's shop. On examining the same by the Chemical Examiner, it was found that the crackers contained pottassium chloride, which is a prohibited substance. Thereupon a crime was registered against the petitioner under Section 102 of the Cr.P.C., read with Section 5 of the Explosives Act. It was in the said circumstances, the 1[st] respondent, by Ext.P2 order, suspended Ext.P1 licence, till the ## **W.P(C) No.34622 of 2008** -: 4 :- disposal of the criminal case, which order was confirmed by the 2[nd] respondent in Ext.P3 appeal as per Ext.P4 order. 5. In **Sasindran v. Addl. District Magistrate** (2006 (4) KLT 662) this Court has held that licensing authority is empowered to vary, suspend or revoke the licence for the security of the public peace or for public safety. Paragraph 10 of the judgment reads thus: “10. In this context clause (b) of sub-s.(3) assumes greater significance. A noticed already, the above clause empowers the authority to vary, suspend or revoke a licence for “the security of the public peace or for public safety”. Undoubtedly, any abuse or misuse of a license issued under the Explosives Act will, not only endanger human life and property but it will also inevitably threaten public security and safety. If the authority concerned is satisfied that the licence issued by it has to be suspended or revoked in larger public interest, the ## **W.P(C) No.34622 of 2008** ## -: 5 :- said authority has to do so unhesitatingly. Even assuming no criminal case has been registered against the licensee, the power vested in the licensing authority to invoke clause (b) of sub-s.(3) of S.6E will remain intact. The said power has to be exercised by the authority for the security and safety of the public.” 6. Therefore the provisions under the Explosives Act give ample powers to vary, suspend or revoke the licence for valid reasons. In the present case, the petitioner has absolutely no case that Ext.P2 order passed by the 1[st] respondent is vitiated by mala fides. A reading of Ext.P2 passed by the 1[st] respondent and also Ext.P4 order passed by the 2[nd] respondent would show that it was after considering the factual matrics of the case that a decision was taken to suspend Ext.P1 licence issued to the petitioner. Reasonings given by respondents 1 and 2 in Exts.P2 and P4 **W.P(C) No.34622 of 2008** -: 6 :- orders are neither perverse nor patently illegal warranting interference of this Court in exercise of the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the result, the writ petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- **ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE.** vsv /true copy/