K.P MOHAMMED ALI v. THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE

THE DISTRICT FIRE OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT FIRE OFFICER, FIRE AND RESCUE SERVICES, KALPETTA, WAYANAD, PIN – 673121 GP DEEPA V THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17.01.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) No.9329 o 2023 2 VIJU ABRAHAM, J. ................................................................. W.P (C) No.9329 of 2023 ................................................................. Dated this the 17th day of January, 2024 JUDGMENT Petitioner has approached this Court seeking to quash Ext.P9 communication issued by the 2nd respondent District Fire Officer.

2. Petitioner is a trader in fire crackers, who has been issued with Ext.P1 licence by the 1st respondent. The said licence was renewed from time to time and the same has been renewed as per order dated

31.05.2021 which is valid upto 31.03.2025. Petitioner submits that one of the conditions stipulated in Ext.P2 renewal order is that prior to the commencement of business, petitioner should obtain a no objection certificate from the 2nd respondent. The specific contention of the petitioner is that the explosive licence is issued by the 1st respondent after conducting an inspection of the place where the business is proposed to be conducted and upon satisfying itself that the proposed site is fit for the conduct of a business in fire crackers. Petitioner contends that there is no provision in the Explosives Act and Rules to obtain a no objection certificate from the 2nd respondent after a licence or renewal is granted by the authorities concerned. Thereafter as per the WP(C) No.9329 o 2023 3 conditions in Ext.P2 petitioner made an application before the 2nd respondent for a no objection certificate which has been declined by Ext.P5 stating various reasons. The said order was challenged by the petitioner by filing W.P.(C) No.37618 of 2022 and this Court as per Ext.P7 judgment set aside Ext.P5 and directed the 2nd respondent to reconsider the matter. Paragraph 6 of the judgment reads as follows: “6. Having considered the contentions advanced and in view of Exhibit P3 judgment and Exhibit P4 NOC issued to the petitioner by the 2nd respondent, I am of the opinion that the refusal to issue a fire NOC, pursuant to the renewal of licence is not justified. Exhibit P5 is, therefore, set aside. There will be a direction to the 2nd respondent to conduct a further inspection in the petitioner's premises to see whether necessary precautions have been taken justifying the grant of fire NOC. In case such steps have been taken, the fire NOC shall not be denied on extraneous grounds or on surmises with regard to possible violations. In case there are any rectifications required, the petitioner shall be put on notice of the same and necessary steps shall be taken by the petitioner. The fact that the shop of the petitioner is being put to use for the sale of fire works only seasonally shall also be considered by the 2nd respondent while passing orders on the request for NOC. Necessary steps shall be taken by the 2nd respondent, after conducting a site inspection, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.” Pursuant to the direction issued by this Court the matter was reconsidered and again rejected the request as per Ext.P9 order on various other new grounds. WP(C) No.9329 o 2023 4 A perusal of Ext.P9 order would reveal that six objections have been raised for rejecting the application submitted by the petitioner. As regard objection nos. 1 and 2, petitioner submits that he is ready to comply with the same. As regard objection nos.3 and 5, petitioner submits that the said objections cannot now be raised as the said issue is concluded as per Ext.P3 order in W.P.(C) Nos.8495 and 8895 of 2021. Petitioner would contend that it is only after considering the said objections that this Court directed reconsideration of the matter by the 2nd respondent and pursuant to the same Ext.P4 no objection certificate has been issued by the said authority. As regard the 4th objection that the building in which the shop situated is in a dangerous condition, the petitioner would contend that Ext.P13 structural stability certificate issued by a competent engineer showed that the shop room of the building is structurally stable and suitable for retail sale of fire crackers in the normal climatic condition. The 6th objection is regarding the existence of the shop in the crowded town. I am of the opinion that the said objection cannot now be raised after the issuance of Ext.P4 no objection certificate based on which Ext.P2 licence has been granted. Therefore the matter requires reconsideration at the hands of the 2nd respondent. To facilitate a reconsideration of the same, Ext.P9 is set aside. Petitioner shall cure objections 1 and 2 and intimate the 2nd respondent in this regard. As regard objections 3 and 5, this Court has considered the same in Ext.P3 and after considering the same, a direction was issued to the 2 nd WP(C) No.9329 o 2023 5 respondent to reconsider the application, after conducting a fresh site inspection, pursuant to which Ext.P4 no objection certificate has been issued. As regard the 4th objection, the 2nd respondent shall take into consideration Ext.P13 structural stability certificate issued to the petitioner while reconsidering the matter as directed above. Fresh orders shall be passed in this regard within an outer limit of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. With the abovesaid directions writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- VIJU ABRAHAM JUDGE WP(C) No.9329 o 2023 6 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 9329/2023 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 Exhibit P2 Exhibit P3 Exhibit P4 Exhibit P5 Exhibit P6 Exhibit P7 Exhibit P8 Exhibit P9 Exhibit P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE LICENSE BEARING NO. 48/WYD/24 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 21.06.2003 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 31.05.2021 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN W.P.(C) 8895/2021 DATED 08.04.2021 A TRUE COPY OF THE NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE DATED 09.04.2021 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 19.10.2022 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER A TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 10.01.2023 IN W.P.(C) 37618/2022 . A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P. (C) 37618/2022 DATED 06.02.2023 A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 10.03.2023 ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LIMITED, AMBALAVAYAL A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 04.03.2023 A PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE "NO SMOKING" BOARD EXHIBITED IN THE FRONT OF THE SHOP ROOM Exhibit P11 THE INVOICE DATED 15.03.2022 ISSUED BY KARNAR SAFETY EQUIPMENTS ISSUED TO THE WP(C) No.9329 o 2023 7 Exhibit P12 Exhibit P13 SHOP ROOM OF THE PETITIONER THE TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY KARNAR SAFETY EQUIPMENTS ISSUED TO THE SHOP ROOM OF THE PETITIONER A TRUE COPY OF THE STRUCTURAL STABILITY CERTIFICATE DATED 08.03.2023 ISSUED BY ANAGHA SAI PRAMOD RESPONDENT EXHIBITS Exhibit R2 (a): True copy of notice given to the petitioner based on the inspection on 27.02.2023 Exhibit R2 (b): True copy of the Building Plan prepared by the petitioner Exhibit R2 (c): Exhibit R2 (d): Exhibit R2 (e): True copy of the report submitted to the 1st Respondent-Additional District Magistrate based on the inspection dated 27.02.2023 True copy of the inspection report dated 12.4.2023 of the Internal Vigilance cum Intelligence Wing of Fire and Rescue Department True copy of the order of the 1st Respondent-the Additional District Magistrate, renewing the license of the petitioner on 21.03.2021 Exhibit R2 (f): True copy of the communication from the District Collector dated 16.03.2023 Exhibit R2 (g): True copy of the guidelines dated 22.09.2022issued by the Petroleum and Explosives Safety Organization (PESO)