ORDER : N. Nagaresh, J. 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the 1 respondent-Additional District Magistrate rejecting the application for licence for the storage and sale of 450 Kg. of fancy fireworks items and Chinese crackers in the building in which the petitioner's father was granted licence. 2. The petitioner states that his father was a licensee for the storage and sale of fancy fireworks items in the building number MC/XVII/3030 (now No. KMC/46/3428) of Kollam Corporation. Thirty five years ago, the petitioner's father was issued with licence to conduct business in fireworks in the very same shop room. The petitioner has been managing the shop for the last 25 years. The licence was last renewed with effect from 31.03.2015 for a period of five years next. 3. The petitioner states that the licence was granted under the Explosives Act and Rules after following all the procedural requirements. Ext. P2 is the 'No Objection' issued by the District Police Chief. Ext. P3 communication of the Assistant Commissioner of Police would show that no criminal case is pending against the applicant and the shop has sufficient place for storing the explosives and further that there is no adverse remarks from the general public. 4. Ext. P4 is the report of the Circle Inspector of Police intimating the District Police Chief that they have no objection in renewing the licence. Ext. P4 would further show that the shop has sufficient space, security measures and that the petitioner's father has been conducting the business for 33 years without any accident. In Ext. P5 communication, the Sub Inspector of Police also submitted that the Police has no objection in renewing the licence. By Ext. P6, the Tahsildar, Kollam also stated that there is no objection in renewal of licence. It was only after clearances from all quarters that Ext. P8 licence in Form LE-5 was issued to the petitioner's father with validity of five years. 5. On 09.01.2019, the petitioner's father passed away. The petitioner thereupon surrendered the current licence in order to take fresh licence in the very same shop room in the name of the petitioner. All the legal heirs of the deceased gave consent letters in favour of the petitioner. Ext. P9 application for Form LE-5 licence was made on 14.01.2019. 5. On 09.01.2019, the petitioner's father passed away. The petitioner thereupon surrendered the current licence in order to take fresh licence in the very same shop room in the name of the petitioner. All the legal heirs of the deceased gave consent letters in favour of the petitioner. Ext. P9 application for Form LE-5 licence was made on 14.01.2019. The District Collector thereupon directed the District Police Chief, the Tahsildar and the District Fire Officer to make requisite enquiries and submit a report. 6. After due enquiry, the Tahsildar gave his report recommending issue of licence to the petitioner after ensuring security parameters. The report of the Tahsildar showed that there are no dwelling houses in the vicinity of the shop and the shop is in a concrete building. The report also stated that there is no railway track or electric line passing through the vicinity of the building. The Tahsildar also stated that the petitioner is experienced in the business of storage and sale of fireworks items. It was further stated that nobody in the neighbourhood has any objection. The petitioner states that the District Fire Officer also made Ext.P12 communication with favourable recommendations, after examining the matter in the safety angle. 7. However, to the surprise of the petitioner, the District Police Chief sent Ext.P13 communication stating that it was not advisable to issue licence to the petitioner. The petitioner states that Ext.P13 communication of the District Police Chief is patently illegal and arbitrary. Based on the incorrect report of the District Police Chief, the 1st respondent-Additional District Magistrate rejected the application of the petitioner, as per Ext.P14. 8. The petitioner filed W.P.(C) No. 24318/2019, aggrieved by Exts.P13 and P14. On 05.09.2019, this Court passed an interim order directing the 1st respondent to issue a provisional licence to the petitioner for a period of one month. In compliance of the interim order, the petitioner was issued licence. In the said writ petition, the 1st respondent stated that such shop shall be located on the ground floor of a building completely separated from other parts of the building by substantial walls having independent entrance and emergency exit from open air and having doors opening outwards, if applicable. 9. According to the petitioner, his shop satisfied the above requirement. In the said writ petition, the 1st respondent stated that such shop shall be located on the ground floor of a building completely separated from other parts of the building by substantial walls having independent entrance and emergency exit from open air and having doors opening outwards, if applicable. 9. According to the petitioner, his shop satisfied the above requirement. On the backside of the shop, opposite to the rear open door of the shop room, there is urinal used by the devotees visiting the nearby Mosque. However, the same has nothing to do with the nature of the open space to which the rear door of the shop room opens. This Court allowed the said writ petition setting aside the impugned order and directing the 1st respondent to pass fresh orders, after considering the issue as to whether the premises of the petitioner is one conforming to Rule 83 of the Explosives Rules. 10. In the purported compliance of the judgment, the 1st respondent has now passed an order dated 02.03.2020 rejecting again the application for licence. The ostensible reason for rejection is that Rule 83(4)(a) of the Explosives Rules has not been complied with since the emergency exit of the shop room is one opening to the toilet of adjacent Mosque. Ext.P17 order is grossly illegal and highly arbitrary, contended the petitioner. 11. The 2nd respondent-Commissioner of Police resisted the writ petition filing a statement. The 2nd respondent stated that on his personal enquiry, it is revealed that the shop having 10 feet length and 10 feet width, is situated in a commercial complex which is in a crowded commercial area, where hundreds of people visit for various purposes. The upper level of building used as godown of a stationery shop and backside of the shop opens towards the toilet of a Mosque. A textile shopping complex is also functioning just 100 metres away from this building. Since this area is in the heart of the Kollam town and experiences heavy traffic, even a slight fire could result in heavy casualties to hundreds of people. 12. The additional 4th respondent filed I.A. No. 1/2020 seeking to implead himself in the writ petition. The additional 4th respondent submitted that the shop room in question is in a densely populated area and people in and around the area always visit the shopping complex building. 12. The additional 4th respondent filed I.A. No. 1/2020 seeking to implead himself in the writ petition. The additional 4th respondent submitted that the shop room in question is in a densely populated area and people in and around the area always visit the shopping complex building. The emergency exit of the building opens to a toilet used by the devotees visiting the Mosque. The petitioner is conducting sale of explosives in the shop, in violation of Rule 83(4)(a) of the Explosives Rules, 2008. Therefore, the 1st respondent rightly rejected Ext.P1 application of the petitioner for licence. 13. I have heard learned Senior Counsel Sri. T.A. Shaji, assisted by Advocate Sri. Abhilash Vishnu appearing for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader Smt. Rashmi K.M. appearing for respondents 1 to 3 and Advocate Sri. B. Mohanlal appearing for the additional 4th respondent. 14. The application of the petitioner for issuance of LE-5 licence under the Explosives Rules stands rejected by the 1st respondent as per Ext.P17. Ext.P17 would show that the 1st respondent has personally visited the area and inspected the shop and the 1st respondent found that the emergency exit of the shop is opening towards the toilet of nearby Mosque. Therefore, the shop does not satisfy the criteria laid down by Explosives Rules, 2008. It is for the said reason that the application of the petitioner stands rejected. 15. The Explosives Rules have been framed by the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred under the Explosives Act. Rule 83 of the Explosives Rules, 2008 reads as follows:- "83. Explosives permitted for possession and sale from shop (1) No explosives, other than fireworks, [gun powder and small arm nitro-compound], permitted in licence shall be stored in a shop for possession and sale. (2) Construction of shop The shop shall be constructed of a brick, stone or concrete and the shop shall be closed and secured so as to prevent unauthorized person from having access thereto. (3) The premise shall have storage area not less than nine square metres and not more than twenty-five square metres. (2) Construction of shop The shop shall be constructed of a brick, stone or concrete and the shop shall be closed and secured so as to prevent unauthorized person from having access thereto. (3) The premise shall have storage area not less than nine square metres and not more than twenty-five square metres. (4) The shop shall- (a) be located on the ground floor of a building completely separated from other parts of the building by substantial wall having independent entrance and emergency exit from open air and having doors opening outwards, if applicable; (b) not be situated in the sub-level or basement or mezzanine floor; (c) not be situated under the upper [floors] used for the purpose of dwelling; (d) not be situated under or nearby any staircase or lift; (e) be accessible for fire fighting; and (f) have no electrical apparatus or battery or oil lamp or similar equipments capable of producing spark or ignition and all electrical wiring in the shop be fixed and effectively sealed or conducted or mechanically protected; the main switch or circuit breaker be provided at the immediate accessible position outside the premises." Therefore, it is evident that no explosives licence can be granted to an applicant if the shop does not have independent entrance and emergency exit from open air and having doors opening outwards. The specific case of the respondents is that the emergency exit existing on the rear side of petitioner's shop opens towards a toilet of nearby Mosque and hence the said door is not opening from open air. 16. The 2nd respondent-Commissioner of Police has filed a statement disclosing that the shop of the petitioner is in a commercial complex situated in a crowded area, hundreds of people visiting the area for various purposes. The 2nd respondent has specifically stated that the backside of the shop opens towards the toilet of a Mosque. From Ext.P17, it can be seen that the 1st respondent-Additional District Magistrate has personally inspected the shop and has found that the emergency exit of the shop is opening towards toilet of the adjacent Mosque. In short, the emergency door of the shop of the petitioner is not opening towards open air, which is a mandatory requirement under Rule 83 of the Explosives Rules, 2008. 17. In short, the emergency door of the shop of the petitioner is not opening towards open air, which is a mandatory requirement under Rule 83 of the Explosives Rules, 2008. 17. In the circumstances, the application of the petitioner for issuance of LE-5 licence under the Explosives Rules, 2008 is not liable to be granted. The rejection of the application of the petitioner as per Ext.P17 by the Additional District Magistrate is therefore perfectly justified. The writ petition lacks merits and it is accordingly dismissed.