K.Tajudeen vs. The State Of Tamil Nadu

Held

The Court held that in view of the submissions made by the Special Government Pleader for the respondents and the contents of the counter-affidavits filed by the District Magistrate/District Collector and the Commissioner of Police, Tiruchirappalli City, nothing survived for adjudication in the present writ petition. The Court noted the genuine endeavors made by the respondents in taking immediate, effective, swift, and diligent action regarding the regulation of the Explosives Rules 2008. The Court appreciated these efforts and disposed of the writ petition as nothing further required adjudication. The operative direction was to dispose of the writ petition as nothing survived for adjudication. No costs were awarded.

Facts

The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the Joint Chief Controller of Explosives (3rd Respondent) to conduct periodical inspections of licences issued by the Commissioner of Police, Tiruchirappalli City (5th Respondent). The petitioner also sought directions to respondents 3 to 8 to cancel licences of persons violating licence conditions, including respondents 9 to 11, for stocking excess explosives in violation of Explosive Rules 2008. The respondents, through the Special Government Pleader, informed the court that action had already been taken. Five licenses were cancelled under Rule 118(i) I and II of the Explosives Rules 2008 for violations, and the shops were sealed. The application for 'Femina Mall' (10th Respondent) was rejected, and the licence for 'Sri Vinayaga Fire Works' was cancelled. Seven licenses were also cancelled by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate in rural areas for violations.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Court should issue a writ of mandamus directing the Joint Chief Controller of Explosives to conduct periodical inspections of licences issued by the Commissioner of Police, Tiruchirappalli City, and consequently direct the cancellation of licences for violations of the Explosives Rules 2008. Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner sought directions for periodical inspections and cancellation of licences for violations, specifically mentioning respondents 9 to 11 for allegedly stocking excess explosives. The petitioner's grievances were ventilated before the Commissioner of Police through their counsel. Revenue/State's Contention: The respondents argued that action had already been taken. They submitted reports indicating that several licenses were cancelled and shops sealed due to violations of the Explosives Rules 2008. They contended that the licensing authority was scrutinizing applications, conducting site inspections, and taking action as per law. They further stated that for Deepavali 2017, 84 temporary licenses were granted after scrutiny, and the 'Femina Mall' application was rejected. They asserted that public safety was ensured, and the district had an 'accident-free' Deepavali, thus nothing survived for adjudication.