Judgment:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALAAT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE DR. MANJULA CHELLUR & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN TUESDAY,THE 2ND DAY OF JULY 2013 11TH ASHADHA, 1935 WA.No. 682 of 2013 () IN WP(C).11290/2012 ------------------------------------------- INTERIM ORDER IN WP(C) 11290/2012 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 04 04-2013 APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ------------------------------------- P.AJIKUMAR P.L. SADHANAM, THIRUPURAM P.O., NEYYATTINKARA. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ---------------------------------------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION, KUDAPPANAKUNNU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004.
2. THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION, KUDAPPANAKUNNU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004.
3. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE POLICE HEADQUARTERS, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ”
011.
4. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE OFFICE OF CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NEMOM, PIN-695 020.
5. SIVAKUMAR, S/O. MANIYAN UTHRADAM HOUSE (MRA-32), KARAMKUZHY POOZHIKUNNU, KARIMON DESOM, NEMOM VILLAGE, PIN-695 020.
6. SHAIJU N.S., S/O.NESA MANI N.S. BHAVAN, KARAKKAVILA, THIRUPURAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
7. P.ARJUNAN ARJUNA BHAVAN, KARAKKAVILA, THIRUPURAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 TO R4 BY SPECIAL GOVT. PLEADER SMT.GIRIJA GOPAL R5 BY ADV. SRI.SHABU SREEDHARAN R6,R7 BY ADV. SRI.V.G.ARUN R6,R7 BY ADV. SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02-07-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.A.NO.682/13 APPENDIX APPELLANT'S EXTS.: ANNEXURE A1: TRUE COPY OF THE LICENCE NO.6/24/2007 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER. ANNEXURE A2: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 23 2.2012 GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER. ANNEXURE A3: TRUE COPY OF THE VAKALATH DATED 25 4.2012 AND EXECUTED ON 26.4.2012 BEFORE THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE. ANNEXURE AIV: TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER IN W.P.C.NO.11290/12 DATED 3 10.2012. ANNEXURE AV: TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER IN W.P.C.NO.11290/12 DTED 28 11.2012. ANNEXURE AV(a): TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER IN W.P.C.NO.11290/12 DATED 10 1.2013. ANNEXURE AV(b): TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER IN W.P.C.NO.11290/12 DATED 5 3.2013. ANNEXURE AVI: TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 18 4.2013 GIVEN TO ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE. RESPONDENTS' EXTS.: NIL. Srd (True copy) P.S. To Judge. MANJULA CHELLUR, C.J.
& K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
---------------------------------------------------- W.A. No.682 of 2013 ---------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of July, 2013 Judgment Manjula Chellur, C.J.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant. The appellant-writ petitioner approached the learned Single Judge challenging Exts.P11 and P13. According to him, he has licence to manufacture and sell explosives and he is engaged in the business of crackers and explosives. He purchased certain explosives from the 5th respondent, whose father was having required licence under the Explosives Act. It is his claim that without his knowledge the 5th respondent obtained a contract for blasting fire crackers in a temple, which ended in a mishap. The petitioner, hence, was falsely implicated in the crime. In spite of bringing this to the notice of respondents 1 and 2, action was initiated against him, therefore, he sought for quashing Exts.P11 and P13. During the pendency of the Writ Petition, having regard to the material on record, the learned Single Judge passed an interim order on 04.04.2013 which reads as under: W.A.682/13 2 "It is brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel for the 5th respondent as well as the learned Government Pleader that the petitioner has not chosen to submit any reply to Exts.P11 and P13 notices and is virtually doing the business without having any licence.
2. After hearing both the sides, this Court finds that there is absolutely no reason to continue the interim order any further. Accordingly, the interim order is vacated. It is for the petitioner to file necessary statement of objection before the concerned authority, in response to Exts.P11 and P13. Objection, if any, shall be filed within 'two weeks' from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the proceedings shall be finalised in accordance with law, after hearing, at the earliest, at any rate, within 'six' weeks thereafter. This shall be subject to the result of the writ petition." 2. In order to file an appeal, there must be some grievance against the order impugned. The only argument, we notice, is there was an interim order of stay before the learned Single Judge and, therefore, this Court has to extend the interim order till the learned Judge proceeds further after disposal of Exts.P11 and P13 by the respondent authorities. We are of the opinion, W.A.682/13 3 there is no justification in such prayer as the Writ Petition is pending before the learned Single Judge. Even if the order that is going to be passed on Exts.P11 and P13 are against the appellant herein, he can always bring it to the notice of the learned Single Judge and seek necessary directions/orders. With these observations, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. MANJULA CHELLUR, CHIEF JUSTICE. K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE. srd