AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Antony Dominic, J.—Ext.P1 is a license which was issued to the Petitioner for the manufacture of explosives. The licence was valid till 31.3.2003. During the currency of the licence an accident occurred in the premises of the Petitioner on 13.12.2007. That led to the registration of a Crime and the case was charge sheeted as ST No. 445/2008 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Wadakkancherry. The case was tried and the Petitioner was finally acquitted by Ext.P2 judgment.
While the case was pending against the Petitioner, on 19.1.2007 Respondents 1 and 3 inspected Form No. 20 licensed establishments and samples were drawn. It is stated that in one sample, presence of potassium chloride was found.
While so, by order dated 2.7.2008, Ext.P1 license issued to the Petitioner was cancelled, based on the report regarding the accident that took place on 13.12.2007. Against the order of cancellation by the 1st Respondent, Petitioner filed an appeal before the 2nd Respondent . By Ext.P3 order, the 2nd Respondent directed reconsideration of the matter taking note of the fact that by Ext.P2 the Petitioner was acquitted by the Criminal Court.
On remand, according to the Petitioner 1st Respondent issued Ext.P4 seeking a clarification from the 3rd Respondent as to the whether potassium chloride was detected from the sample drawn from the Petitioner''s premises. Ext.P5 is the clarification that was furnished. In the clarification so furnished, there is no specific statement that the sample drawn from the Petitioner''s premises contained the presence of potassium chloride.
Despite that, by Ext.P6, the 1st Respondent ordered cancellation of the licence mainly for the reason that potassium chloride was found in the samples bearing licence No. 1178/20, which is Ext.P1. Petitioner filed an appeal before the 2nd Respondent and that was also rejected by Ext.P8. It is in these circumstances the writ petition is filed.
The contention raised by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that there is nothing to conclude that potassium chloride was found in the sample drawn from the Petitioner''s premises. It is stated that neither in Ext.P5 clarification nor in any other document is there anything to support the conclusion contained in Ext.P6. On this ground, learned Counsel seeks to set aside Ext.P6.
Learned Government Pleader on the other hand reiterated the plea that potassium chloride was found from the sample drawn from the Petitioner''s licensed premises.
Although the 3rd Respondent has filed a counter affidavit, that affidavit does not throw much light on the controversy.
It is an undisputed fact that potassium chloride is a prohibited chemical and if potassium chloride was in fact found from the sample drawn from the Petitioner''s premises action initiated against the Petitioner will be unassailable. Therefore the question is whether there is anything to conclude that the sample which showed the presence of potassium chloride was the one drawn from the Petitioner''s licensed premises.
As already mentioned neither in Ext.P5 clarification furnished by the 3rd Respondent nor in the counter affidavit filed in this writ petition is there anything to conclude on this question. The counter affidavit filed by the 1st Respondent also does not reveal any other material to support his conclusion.
In that view of the matter, I am inclined to take the view that the conclusion in Ext.P6 that the sample drawn from the Petitioner''s premises, showed the presence of potassium chloride is unsustainable. In that view of the matter I am satisfied that Ext.P6 appellate order confirmed by Ext.P8 will have to be set aside and I do so.
Therefore I direct that on production of a copy of this judgment, the 1st Respondent will obtain a fresh clarification from the 3rd Respondent specifically as to whether the potassium chloride was found from the sample drawn from the Petitioner''s licensed premises. It is directed that based on the clarification so obtained and if the clarification is against the Petitioner, notice will be issued to the Petitioner, and after hearing him, orders will be passed afresh. On the other hand the clarification is that the sample drawn from the Petitioner''s premises did not show the presence of potassium chloride further action against the Petitioner will be dropped and he will be entitled to apply for restoration of his license.
Writ petition is disposed of as above.