JUDGMENT : HRISHIKESH ROY, J. 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. 4. Per contra, the rival applicant contended that the writ petitioner on 22.4.2013 had sold the shop room from where, he was conducting the fire works business and possession of the said premises was handed over to the buyer and the licensee was not operating the business in the sold premises, thereafter. 4. Per contra, the rival applicant contended that the writ petitioner on 22.4.2013 had sold the shop room from where, he was conducting the fire works business and possession of the said premises was handed over to the buyer and the licensee was not operating the business in the sold premises, thereafter. However, by suppressing the said factual situation, the application for the renewal of licence was submitted and in the meantime, the petitioner had purchased another premises within a distance of 11 meters and on that basis, applied for shifting the shop room for conducting the firecracker business. With these projections, and his own prior application (13.5.2014), the 4th respondent supported the Ext.P6 decision, in his favour. 5. Before the writ court, the State authorities had supported the stand taken by the Additional District Magistrate in his Ext.P6 order. According to them, besides the priority of application filed by the fourth respondent, the offered premises of the fourth respondent should be preferred from safety and suitability angle as well. 6. Adverting to the rival contentions, the learned Judge noted that the writ petitioner had sold the licensed shop premises on 22.4.2013 and had filed his application for transferring the licence to the new premises, only on 26.5.2014. But by that time, his licence had expired on 31.3.2014 and therefore, he had also applied for renewal of licence. However, since the premises for which the license was earlier granted was already sold, the renewal of license could not be for the very same premises without any material to indicate that he was permitted to occupy the premises by the person to whom, the premises were sold. It was then noted by the court that the fourth respondent had also applied for an explosive licence on 13.5.2014 in the purchased building and this was prior to the writ petitioner's application on 26.5.2014. The learned Judge noted that the distance between the offered premises of the rival applicants was only 11 meters whereas the required safety distance under the Rule-86 of the Explosives Rules, 2008 stipulated minimum 15 meters, between two explosive shop rooms. Accordingly, the method adopted by the Additional District Magistrate while refusing the fresh licence to the writ petitioner was found to be justified. His petition was accordingly dismissed. 7. Accordingly, the method adopted by the Additional District Magistrate while refusing the fresh licence to the writ petitioner was found to be justified. His petition was accordingly dismissed. 7. Assailing the legality of the impugned judgment, the learned counsel Smt.Maitreyi Sachidananda Hegde would submit that the appellant was conducting the business in the premises now owned by the fourth respondent, since last several years. Therefore, the authority should have considered her claim to be on superior footing, in the context of the applications for renewal of licence and shifting of the shop premises. According to her since the authorities had recommended the premises offered by the writ petitioner as conforming to the statutory norms, there should have been no occasion for the Additional District Magistrate to compare the merit of two buildings offered by the rival applicants, then apply the distance norms and thereby pass an order favouring the fourth respondent. 8. On the other hand, the learned counsel Sri.P.U.Shailajan representing the fourth respondent would refer to the report dated 20.6.2014 (Ext.P4) of the Tahsildar, Kannur relied on by the appellant himself to point out that, the storage area offered by the appellant in the new premises measures 7.15 sq.m. which is less than the minimum requirement of 9 sq.m., specified in Rule 83 of the Explosives Rules, 2008. He next refers to the provisions of Rule-118 of the Rules to project that when the licencee sold the premises on 22.4.2014, there was an automatic cancellation of the licence as the writ petitioner never had any claim of lawful possession of the licensed premises, thereafter. 9. On a consideration of the rival submissions, we find that when the appellant sold the licenced premises on 22.4.2013, in the absence of any material to show that he was in lawful possession thereafter, the erstwhile licence that he held, stood cancelled by operation of Rule 118 (1)(a) of the Rules. The appellant has failed to produce any material even in these proceedings to show that he continued to lawfully possess the premises, even after the same was sold to Pavithran, the son of the fourth respondent. In that backdrop, his application for transfer of the licence to the new premises, as also the renewal application, can only be seen as an application for a fresh licence, in the new premises. 10. In that backdrop, his application for transfer of the licence to the new premises, as also the renewal application, can only be seen as an application for a fresh licence, in the new premises. 10. Such fresh application was preferred by the writ petitioner only on 26.5.2014 whereas the fourth respondent applied earlier on 13.5.2014. It is therefore to be understood that the application of the fourth respondent would deserve priority consideration by the authority. When it comes to consideration of application preferred by two candidates for the benefit of a licence, in the absence of any statutory prescription regarding priority, one must proceed on the general principle spelt out by the Latin maxim, Qui prior est tempore potior est jure-He who is first in time is better in law. Accepting this proposition as applicable in the present facts, we feel that the application preferred by the fourth respondent was rightly given priority, while determining the entitlement of the applicant for the licence, in respect of the premises in question. 11. In that backdrop, the application by the appellant in respect of the new premises had to be considered viz-a-viz the fourth respondent's claim for licence, in respect of the premises offered by the latter. The distance between the two premises being only 11 meters, (less than the required 15 meters prescribed by Rule-16 of the Explosive Rules), the application of the appellant had to yield to the prior and superior claim of the fourth respondent, to ensure compliance with the safety requirement. Thus viewed, the adjudicatory authority cannot be faulted for having preferred the fourth respondent over the appellant, for the grant of the explosive licence in the premises in question. 12. That apart, the adjudicatory authority also commented on the safety aspect of the respective buildings offered by the two applicants and found that superior safety standards are offered in the building, provided by Kannan.K (respondent No.4). This aspect in our opinion is very relevant viz-a-viz the object sought to be achieved by the statutory Rules, in as much as the licence applied for, was to deal in explosive materials for the fire-cracker business. A comparative safety aspect of the two offered buildings for storage of explosive must surely be a relevant consideration for assessing the inter se claims of the two applicants, for the explosive licence. 13. A comparative safety aspect of the two offered buildings for storage of explosive must surely be a relevant consideration for assessing the inter se claims of the two applicants, for the explosive licence. 13. It is also impossible to ignore the fact that the building offered by the appellant failed to satisfy the minimum storage space requirement of Rule 83 of the Explosive Rules as is evident from the Ext.P4 certificate of the Tahsildar relied upon by the appellant himself where the storage capacity is shown as 7.15 M3 whereas, the minimum storage space requirement under the Rules, is 9M3. 14. In view of the foregoing, we see no reason to interfere with the finding of the learned Judge upholding the Ext.P6 order of the Additional District Magistrate. The Writ Appeal fails and is dismissed accordingly.