Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking for a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned endorsement dated 20.10.2018 bearing No. M/A/J/100/Ma.No/2018 issued by the 2nd respondent vide Annexure-C and for a writ of mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to renew the license of the petitioner in Form LE-5 to possess and sell fireworks and crackers pursuant to the application vide Annexure-B.

2. It is the specific case of the petitioner that petitioner is having licence to run a fireworks shop for sale of manufactured fire works of class-7, Divison-2, Sub-Divison - 2, 400 K.G. of Chinese crackers and sparkles and 50 kg of manufactured fireworks which was valid upto 31.03.2017. On 28.02.2018, petitioner made a request to the 1st respondent - authority to renew the license No.45/93 and paid the requisite fee as contemplated under Rule 112 of the Explosives Rules, 2008. The 1st respondent without following the procedure as contemplated under the provisions of 116 of the Explosive rules issued the impugned endorsement on 28.10.2018. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court for the relief sought for.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis.

4. Sri Hareesh Bhandary, learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the petition has contended with vehemence that though the petitioner is having licence to run firework shop from 1993 upto 31.03.2017 by renewing periodically, inspite of request made on 28.02.2018 by paying the requisite fee as contemplated, issued endorsement rejecting the application mainly on the ground that the premises is situated within the vicinity of shopping place thickly populated area. The said endorsement issued by the 2nd respondent is in utter violation of Rule 116(5) of the Explosives Rules, 2008. Therefore, he sought to quash the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent by allowing the present writ petition.

6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, it is an undisputed fact that the petitioner was having licence to run a firework shop for sale of manufactured fire works in the same premises from 1993 to 2017 for which the petitioner made a representation on 28.02.2018 to renew the licence No.45/93. The 2nd respondent while rejecting the application for renewal of the licence, has not provided any opportunity of being heard as contemplated under Rule 116(5) of the Explosives Rules 2008, which reads as under: