Karnataka High Court
A Venkataraya Nayak vs The Environment Engineer on 17 October, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:41450
WP No. 24061 of 2025
C/W WP No. 24173 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO. 24061 OF 2025 (LB-RES)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO. 24173 OF 2025 (LB-RES)
IN WP No. 24061/2025:
BETWEEN:
A. VENKATARAYA NAYAK
AGED 50 YEARS
S/O KODANDARAMA NAYAK
M/S A. KODANDARAMA NAYAK
10-1-235,
RATHABEEDI, CARSTREET,
UDUPI-576101
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR S., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. VIVEK HOLLA, ADVOCATE)
Digitally AND:
signed by
SUMA
Location: THE ENVIRONMENT ENGINEER
HIGH CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL,
COURT OF KAVI MUDDANNA ROAD,
KARNATAKA
UDUPI-576101.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. PRASAD HEGDE, ADVOCATE)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT
BEARING A11.CR.992/2024 - 25 DATED 15.01.2025 (ANNEXURE-T)
PASSED BY RESPONDENT AND ETC.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:41450
WP No. 24061 of 2025
C/W WP No. 24173 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN WP NO. 24173/2025
BETWEEN:
A. VENKATARAYA NAYAK
AGED 50 YEARS
S/O KODANDARAMA NAYAK
7-1-5b1, 78,
BADAGUBETTU VILLAGE,
UDUPI DISTRICT-576101
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR S., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. VIVEK HOLLA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE ENVIRONMENT ENGINEER
CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL,
KAVI MUDDANNA ROAD,
UDUPI-576101.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. PRASAD HEGDE K.B., ADVOCATE)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT
BEARING A11.CR.993/2024-25 DATED 15.01.2025 (ANNEXURE-M)
PASSED BY RESPONDENT.
THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:41450
WP No. 24061 of 2025
C/W WP No. 24173 of 2025
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner in WP No.24061/2025 has challenged an endorsement bearing No.A11.CR.992/2024-25 dated 15.01.2025 issued by the respondent. He has also sought for writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the renewal of the trade license of the petitioner as per the letter dated 22.10.2024.
2. The petitioner in WP No.24173/2025 has challenged an endorsement bearing No.A11.CR.993/2024-25 dated 15.01.2025 issued by the respondent. He has also sought for writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the renewal of the trade license No.E/SC/KA/24/117(E20877) of the petitioner as per the letter dated 15.05.2024.
Facts as pleaded in WP No.24061/2025
3. The petitioner is the owner of the shop bearing No. 10-1-235 in Carstreet, Udupi. His father had a fireworks licence from the department of explosives on 02.07.1979. He was authorized to possess and sell fireworks not exceeding 100 kgs of class - VII of Division - I and crackers upto 1000 kgs of Class - VII, Division - II. He has also obtained a no-objection certificate (henceforth referred to as 'NOC' for short) Assistant District Magistrate as per Explosives Rules, 1983. The licence so granted -4- NC: 2025:KHC:41450 WP No. 24061 of 2025 C/W WP No. 24173 of 2025 HC-KAR was renewed from time to time. Petitioner claims that he is carrying on business in metals and pooja items throughout the year and during festivals, he sells firecrackers exclusively for a week. He claims that a licence is issued by the respondent permitting the petitioner to carry on the trade of sale of fireworks. The trade licence issued previously was valid upto 31.03.2024. The petitioner paid the renewal fee on 15.05.2024 and got a computer generated renewed trade licence which is valid till 31.03.2028. He contends that the hard copy of the trade licence was not issued with a hologram and therefore, he met the Chief Officer and requested him to issue a hard copy of the trade licence. The Junior Health Inspector issued a reply dated 01.06.2024 directing the petitioner to submit an NOC from the Fire Department, failing which the trade licence would be cancelled. The petitioner then replied stating that there was no requirement in law to obtain a NOC and hence, requested him to renew the licence. The Chief Officer of the respondent then sent a letter dated 09.07.2024 to the Fire department and the Tahsildar, Udupi, seeking their opinion. The petitioner again escalated the issue before the Chief Officer on 22.10.2024 and stated that NOC was not required as per the order of this Court in W.P.No.25099/2023. The petitioner contends that -5- NC: 2025:KHC:41450 WP No. 24061 of 2025 C/W WP No. 24173 of 2025 HC-KAR the respondent without any show cause notice or hearing, issued an endorsement dated 15.01.2025 refusing to renew the licence on the ground that the shop of the petitioner is situate in a densely populated area. The petitioner contends that he has been carrying on the activity without any incident from a long time and that the road in front of the shop is at least 18 meters wide. He claims that he has a separate warehouse for storage of firecrackers which has a separate licence and is situate in a different village. He also contends that he has reduced the floor area for sale of firecrackers from 39.36 sq. mtrs. to 19.23 sq. mtrs from the year 2019 and keeps a very small portion of the crackers for day-to-day sale. In view of the endorsement issued by the respondent refusing to renew the licence, the petitioner is before this Court. Facts as pleaded in W.P.No.24173/2025
4. The petitioner holds LI-5 explosives licence No.E/SC/KA/24/117 (E20877) issued by the Deputy Controller of Explosives, Mangaluru, for possession and sale of fireworks which is valid till 31.03.2028. He claims that the additional district commissioner, has issued NOC for issuance of licence.
5. The petitioner claims that he has obtained a trade licence from the respondent to store firecrackers in the premises -6- NC: 2025:KHC:41450 WP No. 24061 of 2025 C/W WP No. 24173 of 2025 HC-KAR bearing No.7-1-5B1, Sy.No.34/3A of Badagubettu village, Udupi District. He claims that he obtained a trade licence from the respondent to store firecrackers in the said premises in the year 2018 and is renewed till 2023-24. The petitioner paid the fee for renewal on 15.05.2024. He thereafter met the respondent for a hardcopy of the renewed trade licence. The health inspector of the respondent directed the petitioner to obtain and submit NOC from the fire department within seven days, failing which the trade licence would be cancelled. The petitioner replied stating that there was no requirement in law to obtain an NOC from the fire department for renewal and hence, requested for renewal of the trade licence. The Municipal Counselor thereafter addressed letters to the fire department and Tahsildar, Udupi, seeking their opinion in the matter. The Udupi police addressed a letter dated 11.11.2023 and 17.10.2024 requesting the petitioner to store the firecrackers that were seized from persons who were unauthorisedly selling it until the decision of the case before the Court.
6. The petitioner again requested the Chief Officer of the respondent on 22.10.2024 stating that NOC from the fire department is not necessary in view of an order passed by a co- -7-
NC: 2025:KHC:41450 WP No. 24061 of 2025 C/W WP No. 24173 of 2025 HC-KAR ordinate bench of this court in W.P.No.25093/2023. However, the respondent without issuing any show cause notice and without hearing the petitioner issued an endorsement dated 15.01.2025, refusing to renew trade licence of the petitioner on the ground that the godown was situated in a thickly populated area. The petitioner contends that he is not selling the firecrackers in the premises but was only using it to store them and this godown was situate in a different village outside Udupi town. Being aggrieved by the endorsement refusing to renew the licence, the petitioner is before this Court.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the licence under the Explosives Act and Explosives Rules have already issued after being duly satisfied about the location of the shop and godown of the petitioner. Likewise, NOC's were issued by the Additional District Commissioner for issuance of a licence. He contends that the petitioner has been selling firecrackers in the shop from the year 1983 and is storing them in the godown since the year 2001. He contends that the trade licence is issued by the respondent is in force till 31.03.2028. He contends that till date there has not been any incident in either the godown or the shop of the petitioner. He also contends that there is no danger as -8- NC: 2025:KHC:41450 WP No. 24061 of 2025 C/W WP No. 24173 of 2025 HC-KAR apprehended by the respondent. Besides this, he contends that there is no requirement in law to obtain a NOC from the fire department. Nonetheless, the respondent has been insisting the petitioner to obtain an NOC from the fire department and on that ground has refused to renew the licence.
8. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that under Section 256 r/w 257 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 (henceforth referred to as 'the Act, 1964' for short) power is vested in the respondent to not grant licences to certain trades and occupations if it has the potentiality of creating nuisance or causing danger. He therefore submits that the respondent has exercised power under Section 256 r/w 257 of the Act, 1964, in calling upon the petitioner to furnish a NOC from the fire control department. He further submits that the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Udupi has addressed a letter dated 24.12.2024 apprehending that it may be dangerous to sell firecrackers on the following grounds:
Shop No. 10-1-235 is located in the vicinity of the famous religious place of Udupi, Sri Krishna Math, where nearly ten thousand people visit it and therefore, allowing -9- NC: 2025:KHC:41450 WP No. 24061 of 2025 C/W WP No. 24173 of 2025 HC-KAR fire crackers to be sold in the shop would endanger safety of public.
With respect to godown at No.7-1-5B1, it is stated that in case if there is an explosion, it could endanger residential areas, schools, colleges and religious places and may cause danger to lives.
9. The learned counsel submits that several cases have been reported in the recent past, where several lives were lost in an explosion caused by the firecrackers. He therefore submits that in the interest of the general public, it is appropriate that the petitioner is directed to obtain a NOC from the fire department.
10. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent.
11. The respondent has granted licenses authorizing the petitioner to conduct business in sale of firecrackers from the year 1983 and to store them in a godown since the year 2001. It is not the case of the respondent that from the year 1983 and till date, there was any explosion caused in the shop or the godown of the petitioner. The photograph of the shop placed on record shows that the petitioner in addition to sale of firecrackers also sells metals and
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:41450 WP No. 24061 of 2025 C/W WP No. 24173 of 2025 HC-KAR other items. It is also the case of the petitioner that only during the festival season, he would sell firecrackers and keep a small quantity for counter sales. The respondent which had issued the licenses has not insisted upon the petitioner to obtain a NOC from the fire control department from the year 1983 till the year 2024-25. The petitioner made a request for renewal of the licenses and also paid the renewal fee. When he requested the respondent for issuing a hardcopy of the licence, the respondent has insisted to furnish an NOC from the fire department. The respondent is unable to point out to any provision of law which mandates that for renewal of a trade license, it is incumbent to furnish an NOC from the fire control department. The officers of the explosives department have issued the licence after conducting inspection of the properties of the petitioner and therefore, the respondent cannot insist upon furnishing an NOC from the fire department which has no role to play in the grant or renewal of trade licence.
12. In similar circumstances, a Co-ordinate Bench of this court in WP No.25099/2023 had held, "In the absence of any applicable law, however good the intention of the Health officer may be, the Health officer cannot on his own seek for implementation of a particular requirement when the law does not contemplate it to be so."
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:41450 WP No. 24061 of 2025 C/W WP No. 24173 of 2025 HC-KAR
13. In view of the above, the impugned endorsements issued by the respondent have no legs to stand and are liable to be quashed.
14. Hence, these writ petitions are allowed. The impugned endorsements bearing No.A11.CR.992/2024-25 and bearing No.A11.CR.993/2024-25 both dated 15.01.2025 issued by the respondent are quashed.
15. However, the petitioner is put on terms namely, that no harm or injury would be caused to any person while conducting business in shop at No.10-1-235, Carstreet, Udupi. He shall take all safety and security measures including installing fire fighting equipment, a hose with running water to meet any eventuality. If there is any violation in this regard by the petitioner, the respondent is at liberty to take necessary action.
Sd/-
(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE BKN/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13