Madhya Pradesh High Court
M/S Jai Mata Di Traders Thr vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 26 July, 2018
Author: Sheel Nagu
Bench: Sheel Nagu
1
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
W.P. No.6901/2016
(M/s Nagpal Traders Vs. State of M.P.)
Gwalior, Dated:26.07.2018
W.P.No.6901/16, W.P.No.6902/16, W.P.No.6903/16,
W.P.No.6906/16, W.P.No.6907/16, W.P.No.6908/16,
W.P.No.6909/16, W.P.No.6910/16, W.P.No.6911/16,
W.P.No.6912/16 W.P.No.6913/16, W.P. No.6914/16
W.P. No.6915/16
Order
Sheel Nagu J.
None present for the parties as lawyers are abstaining from
work.
All the 13 petitions mentioned above involving identical
set of facts and raising the same ground and seeking the
same relief have been taken up for consideration and are
being decided by this common order.
Facts in W.P. No. 6901/2016 are considered for
adjudication of all the petitions.
The petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenges the order of licensing authority, i.e. the District Magistrate, Gwalior dated 16.09.2016 by which after affording opportunity to the petitioner, the renewal of license is made subject to certain conditions with some ancillary directions. The licensing authority which had earlier suspended the license of petitioner for violation of Rule 118 (1)(iii) of the Explosives Rules 1884, passed the impugned order forfeiting the excess/unaccounted stock of fire crackers and directing for their auction and depositing the proceeds with the public exchequer. Further direction has been issued that in view of 2 past conduct and pressure tactics adopted by the petitioner licensee, to prevent recurrence of such misdemeanor in the future, further renewal of explosives license is made subject to deposit of Rs. 50,000/- in shape of FDR, so that the same can be forfeited in the event of future default.
Admittedly, the provisions of the Explosives Act, 1884 provide for an appeal u/S 6-F which includes the power not only to entertain and decide the appeal, but also to grant an interim order. Appeals are permitted to be filed against any order of the licensing authority. Thus, the impugned order herein is appealable but the petitioner has not availed the said statutory remedy of appeal.
This Court while taking cognizance of this petition had directed by way of interim order on 13.10.2016 as follows:
"Despite opportunity afforded to the respondents' counsel, no instructions are reported to have been received. In such circumstances, maintaining parity with the order dated 28.09.2016 passed in W.P.No.6913/2016 by the coordinate Bench of this Court, issue notice to the respondents on payment of process fee within three working days. Notices be made returnable in four weeks.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that the order of confiscation shall remain stayed. So far as deposit of FDR is concerned, it is further directed that the surety be furnished of Rs. 50,000/- in place of FDR, subject to final outcome of this petition."
In view of the fact that disputed questions of fact are involved for proper adjudication of the grounds raised in 3 respect of challenge to the impugned order Annexure P-1, it would be appropriate that the petitioner avails the remedy u/S 6-F of the Explosives Act, 1884 alongwith an application for stay, if he is so advised. Moreso, the impugned order does not appear to be passed bereft of jurisdiction to compel this Court to exercise power of judicial review even in the face of unavailed statutory remedy.
Accordingly, the present petition, without commenting upon merits of the claim of the petitioner is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to prefer an appeal u/S 6(F) of the Explosives Act 1884 against the impugned order of the licensing authority dated 16.09.2016 Annexure P-1, which if preferred within a period of 30 working days alongwith a copy of the order passed by this Court today, then the same shall be entertained and decided on its own merits by the appellate authority without being dismissed on the ground of limitation alone.
Till decision is taken by the Appellate authority on merits, the interim order passed on 13.10.2016 by this Court, as reproduced above shall remain in operation.
It is made clear that if remedy of appeal is not availed within the time limit laid down supra, this order shall become non-existent.
(Sheel Nagu) Judge sh/-
SEHAR HASEEN 2018.07.28 15:45:53 +05'30'