Madhya Pradesh High Court
M/S Mahakal Fire Shop Through Late Shri ... vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 30 October, 2018
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
1 WA No.1441/18 & 1445/18
WA No.1445/2018 &
WA No.1441/2018
Indore, Dated : 30.10.2018
Shri Harish Pawar, learned counsel for the appellants.
Shri Vivek Patwa, learned counsel for the
respondents/State.
Heard.
By these writ appeals under Section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005, the appellants have challenged the common order dated 8.2.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the WP No.7802/2015 and WP No.7804/2015.
The short facts are that the appellants were granted the license for sale of firecrackers under the provisions of Explosives Act, 1884 and the Explosives Rules, 2008. The notice was issued to the appellants and thereafter the District Magistrate had passed the order dated 17.9.2015 cancelling the license of the appellants on the ground of violation of the provisions of the Act and the Rules. The appeal preferred by the appellants was dismissed by the Commissioner vide order dated 5.11.2015 affirming the order of the District Magistrate. Aggrieved with these orders the appellants had approached the writ court by filing the writ petitions as mentioned above and the learned Single Judge after considering the respective plea of the parties and their counsel, has dismissed the writ petition.
Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants were not granted any opportunity before the authorities and that no enquiry was conducted by the Digitally signed by Trilok Singh Savner Date: 31/10/2018 11:24:52 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 2 WA No.1441/18 & 1445/18 concerned authority while passing the impugned order and the learned Single Judge has committed an error in not appreciating the said aspect because the writ petition was heard in the absence of counsel for the appellants.
As against this, learned counsel for the State has supported the orders under challenge.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, it is noticed that the order passed by the District Magistrate dated 17.9.2015 itself reveals that the proceedings were initiated on the basis of the report received from the SDM. Thereafter the District Magistrate had issued show-cause notices twice and even the reply to the show- cause notices were filed and thereafter the enquiry was also got conducted and the enquiry report was received and after considering all this material the District Magistrate had found that the place for which the license was granted, was not fit for the business in question and there was a possibility of loss of public life and money. Hence noting the violation of the provisions of Section 15(4), 88, 80, 74, 83(4), 83(4)(d) of the Explosives Act, 1884 and the Explosives Rules, 2008, the order was passed for cancelling the license given to the appellants. The order of the District Magistrate reveals that it was found that the shop of the appellants are near the residential and commercial area and there was a possibility of breaking of fire. The issue was again re-examined by the Commissioner, who after hearing the appellants had affirmed the order of the District Magistrate by dismissing the appeal. The order of the Commissioner reveals that the interest of the appellants has been protected by issuing a direction to the District Magistrate, Ujjain to grant permission to sale the Digitally signed by Trilok Singh Savner Date: 31/10/2018 11:24:52 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 3 WA No.1441/18 & 1445/18 firecrackers at a safe place as per the rules, keeping in view the forthcoming Dipawali festival.
The learned Single Judge has duly considered the aforesaid aspect of the matter while recording as under:-
"4. A detailed and exhaustive reply has been filed by the respondents and the respondents have stated that the licence under the provisions of Explosive Act, 1984 was granted to the petitioners and during inspection various irregularities were noticed and thereafter, the show-cause notice were issued to all of the licence holders and as their replies have not been found satisfactory. The District Magistrate has passed the impugned order and thereafter, the appeals of the petitioners have also been dismissed. The respondents have prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
5. This Court has carefully gone through the writ petition as well as the replies filed by the respondents. The facts of the case reveal that on on 25.11.2012, licence for sale and purchase was granted in favour of the petitioners under the provisions of the Explosive Act and on 24.05.2014, an inspection took place and irregularities were noticed by the competent authorities and consequent to which, a show- cause notice was issued on 16.07.2014. The petitioners did submit replies to the show-cause notices and on 22.07.2014, the District Magistrate directed the Sub Divisional Magistrate to carry out the inspection of the place from where the crackers were being sold and thereafter, second show-cause notice was issued on 09.10.2014.
6. Again reply was filed and finally, the order has been passed on 17.09.2015 on account of violation of provisions of Explosive Act r/w Rules, 2008 and appeal has been dismissed on 05.11.2015 in all cases. The aforesaid facts relate to the cancellation of the licence of the petitioner No.1. In respect of petitioner No.2, the same procedure was followed and licence was cancelled on 17.09.2015 and the appeal was Digitally signed by Trilok Singh Savner Date: 31/10/2018 11:24:52 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 4 WA No.1441/18 & 1445/18 dismissed on 05.11.2015. In respect of petitioner Nos.3, 4 and 5, dates are same in respect of cancellation of licence and dismissal of the appeal.
7. Learned counsel for the State Government has argued before this Court that in the recent past, a large number of casualties have taken place as the go-downs/shops were situated in densely populated local area and, therefore, by way of abundant caution and as there was violation of the terms and conditions of the licence, the licences granted in favour of the petitioners have rightly been cancelled.
8. Learned government advocate has argued before this Court that the question of interference by this Court does not arise as the procedure prescribed has been followed by the respondents. There was enough material with the respondents to cancel the licence. She has also argued that sufficiency of material cannot be looked into by this Court though there was sufficient material. She has also argued that this Court cannot look into the decision making process which is under challenge.
9. In the considered opinion of this Court, as the record establishes that there was enough material to cancel the licences of the petitioners as the shops were situated in densely populated area and as there was violation of terms and conditions of licence, the authorities have followed the prescribed procedure while cancelling the licence of the petitioners."
Having regard to the aforesaid, I am of the opinion that the contention of counsel for the appellants that the impugned orders were passed by the District Magistrate and Commissioner without giving a notice or without conducting an enquiry, is devoid of any merit. Even otherwise no procedural irregularity or any infringement of the provisions of the Act or the Rules has been pointed out by counsel for the Digitally signed by Trilok Singh Savner Date: 31/10/2018 11:24:52 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 5 WA No.1441/18 & 1445/18 appellants nor the jurisdiction of the authorities who had passed the impugned orders has been questioned, therefore, we are of the opinion that no ground for interference in the impugned orders is made out. Since the learned Single Judge has duly considered all the relevant aspects of the matter while dismissing the writ petition, therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere in the order of the learned Single Judge.
The writ appeals are accordingly dismissed. Signed order be kept in the file of WA No.1445/2018 and a copy thereof be placed in the file of connected WA No.1441/2018.
C.C. as per rules.
(Prakash Shrivastava) (Vivek Rusia)
Judge Judge
trilok/-
Digitally signed by Trilok Singh Savner
Date: 31/10/2018 11:24:52