MANOJ KUMAR P.V. Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Smt. Maitreyi Sachidananda Hegde, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant. Also heard Sri P.U. Shailajan, the learned counsel representing Kannan.K (respondent No. 4). The learned Government Pleader Sri Surin George Ipe is representing the State authorities.

(2.) This Appeal is filed by the writ petitioner, who is aggrieved by the judgment dated 27.10.2015 whereunder, the learned Judge had rejected his challenge to the 20.12.2014 proceedings (Ext. P6) of the Additional District Magistrate, Kannur. The writ petitioner was the owner of the 'Kannapuram Fireworks' and was operating the shop No. KPX/492 under the Explosive Licence No. 326/LE-5 with validity period until 31.3.2014. But on 22.4.2013, he sold the shop premises to Pavithran (the son of the 4th respondent) and after around 13 months, applied for renewal of licence. Next he purchased a nearby building (No. KP-X/496) and on 26.5.2014, applied for transfer of the explosive licence to the new premises. However, the Additional District Magistrate, Kannur by the impugned Ext. P6 order, cancelled the licence on the ground that the fourth respondent has prior and better claim to secure the licence, in the building under his occupation. By the very same order, the licence renewal as also the transfer application of the writ petitioner, to the newly purchased premises, was rejected by the Additional District Magistrate.

(3.) The writ petitioner challenged the Ext. P6 order with the contentions that his application for shifting the shop room as well as for renewal of licence was supported by favourable reports from the authorities concerned, and therefore, the minimum distance norms between the respective premises offered by the petitioner and the fourth respondent, could not have been the basis to reject the writ petitioner's application. He contended that although the fourth respondent applied earlier on 13.5.2014 and the writ petitioner submitted his application subsequently on 26.5.2014, since the writ petitioner had obtained the supporting materials earlier even before his application, the Additional District Magistrate should have taken this aspect into account to favorably consider his application, viz-a-viz. the one preferred by the fourth respondent.