District Magistrate Has To Re-Consider All Parameters On Licensee's Application To Increase Storage Quantity Of Explosives: Kerala High Court
Manju Elsa Isac
15 July 2024 11:08 AM GMT
The Kerala High Court has ordered that the District Magistrate has to re-ascertain all the criteria before allowing an application for increasing the permissible amount of explosive one can store, from 25 kilograms to 100 kilograms. The Court observed that the parameters of enquiry for 25 kilograms is not similar to the parameters for 100 kilograms.
Justice C. Jayachandran observed, “The parameters of enquiry for storing 25 kilograms cannot be said to be similar and the same, as the parameters for an enquiry for storing 100 kilogram.”
It said that as per Explosives Rules 2008, the District Magistrate has to consider the following parameters before granting a licence/ permit for storing the explosives.
- The antecedents of the applicant
- The lawful possession of the site
- Genuineness of the purpose
- Interest of public
- Any other verifications or enquiries as may be specifically required by the licensing authorities to be carried out
- Any other matter deemed necessary
The Court held that the safety of the nearby residents comes within the ambit of 'any other matter deemed necessary' and it should be enquired.
The petitioner said that the District Magistrate rejected the application solely relying on the refusal of the District Police Chief and the Panchayat to issue a No Objection Certificate. The petitioner argued that as per rules, there is no need to get a No Objection Certificate from the Panchayat or Police as the quantity of explosive does not exceed 100 kilograms.
The Court agreed and said, "inasmuch as, a 'No Objection Certificate' from the Panchayat, or for that matter of the District Police Chief, is not specifically contemplated, and inasmuch as the rejection of the petitioner's request vide Ext.P9 is solely based on such refusal to issue 'No Objection Certificate', Ext.P9 cannot be sustained."
Thus, it directed District Magistrate to reconsider the application by ascertaining the necessary criteria.
Counsel for Petitioner: Advocates P. M. Ziraj, Irfan Ziraj
Counsel for Respondents: Government Pleader Adv. Ajith Viswanathan, T. R. Harikumar, Arjun Raghavan, T. P. Ramachandran
Case No: WP(C) 29874 of 2023
Case Title: Soman T. N. v Additional District Collector and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 440
