Justice C. Jayachandran was considering a writ petition challenging orders that rejected the petitioner's application for an explosive license.

The reasons stated for rejection were that the property in which the explosive magazine is sought to be settled as an exempted land under Section 81 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. The second reason was the public objection.

The petitioner relied on Joy Joseph v District Collector, Kannur and Others [2016 (3) KLT 514] to contend that the public objection, by itself, cannot be taken to reject an application for explosive license.

The government submitted that there are already five quarries functioning in the locality and a further license issued for an explosive magazine may imperil the safety and life of the local inhabitants.

The Court noted that the decision in Joy Joseph favours the petitioner and added:

“This Court also notice that a public opinion or public objection, unless accompanied by a valid ground recognisable in the Explosives Rules, cannot be taken stock of to reject an application for explosive license. This Court also notice that, what is sought for is an explosive magazine, as against the five quarries, which are allegedly functioning in the locality.”

The Court thus set aside the impugned orders and directed the District Collector, who is also acting as the District Magistrate to reconsider the application in accordance with law within six weeks.

The court thus disposed of the petition.

Counsel for Petitioner: M.P. Ashok Kumar, P.C. Gopinath, Bindhu Sreedhar, Asif N

Counsel for Respondent: C.K. Sherin (Sr. GP)