High CourtsSingle Bench(2021) 08 KL CK 0093

Amzan Ziad vs Additional District Magistrate

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 12 August 2021

HON’BLE JUDGES
N.Nagaresh
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition (C) No.16411 Of 2021

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

19 paragraphs · 381 words

N. Nagaresh, J

1.

The writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking to quash Ext.P6 and to direct the respondent to grant temporary LE-5 licence to the

petitioner for possession and sale of manufactured fireworks and chorsa crackers at the shop numbered MC No.46/732 situated in Re-survey No.175

of Kollam East Village for a period of 30 days.

2.

By Ext.P6 order, the respondent has rejected the application of the petitioner for LE-5 licence primarily on the ground that the petitioner's father is

involved in an offence under the Explosives Rules and that the shop is situated in a crowded market at Kollam. The learned counsel for the petitioner

would urge that both the grounds are unsustainable.

3.

The learned Government Pleader contested the writ petition and pointed out that the explosives shop is proposed to be located in the heart of a busy

market in Kollam Corporation and Ext.P6 has been passed taking into consideration the threat that may arise due to the establishment of an explosives

selling shop in a market place, though on a temporary basis.

4.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.

5.

It is discernible from the pleadings in the writ petition that the location where the explosives shop is intended to be established, has been used for

sale of explosives for a long period. This Court had earlier considered the issue in respect of the same premises in Exts.P10 and P12 judgments and

had permitted to issue Explosives Licence for the same premises.

6.

I find that the reason given by the respondent that the petitioner's father is involved in an offence relating to Explosives Rules, cannot be a reason to

reject the application submitted by the petitioner. It is noted that only 12 days remaining for the expiry of festival season for which the petitioner has

applied for licence. In such circumstances, I am inclined to set aside Ext.P6 order.

The writ petition is allowed and Ext.P6 is set aside. It is made clear that the petitioner will be at liberty to run the explosives shop for a period of 12

days. It is also made clear that the petitioner should be granted licence to sell only low intensity fireworks for a period of 12 days.