Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(Order of the Court was made by M.M.SUNDRESH, J) The appellant herein is the licensee for the manufacture of Explosive Substance. Initially, No Objection Certificate was issued by the second respondent, followed by the licence issued by the first respondent. There was a unfortunate accident resulting in the loss of 19 lives within the precinct of the appellant. A case was also registered against the appellant. The second respondent issued show cause notice seeking to exercise his power under Rule 115 of the Explosive Rules, 2008. Though the show cause notice is said to have been despatched, there has been no indication of the same having been received by the appellant. Having found that the appellant has not responded, the impugned order was passed, cancelling the No Objection Certificate in public interest by taking into consideration of public health and public safety.

2.The said order was put into challenge before the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge though noted that no notice has been served to the appellant proceeded to dismiss the writ Petition, on the ground of empty formality being involved. Challenging the same the appeal is before us.

3.The learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that even as per Rule 115 of Explosive Rules, 2008, notice of hearing is mandated. The appellant has not been heard and there is no material to hold that it has been served. Therefore, the said order is ab initio void. After the impugned order was passed by the second respondent, the first respondent has cancelled the licence issued. Though, Rule 118 of Explosive Rules, 2008, provides for dispensing with a notice of hearing for the reasons to be stated, a notice was issued and thereafter an order of cancellation was passed. Therefore, it is submitted that though the appellant was not heard, the fact remains that a notice was issued under Rule 118 of Explosive Rules, 2008, by the licensing authority. Therefore, it cannot be stated that the case in hand involves dispensing with the notice as against the mandatory prescription under Rule 115 of Explosive Rules, 2008. It is also not the case of the second respondent that no notice is required. In such view of the matter the order impugned as confirmed by the learned Single Judge cannot be sustained.

(4) this direction issued by us on construction of Rule 113 of Explosive Rules, 2008, where the power of the second respondent is rather wide in taking into consideration of public interest being paramount;

(5) a positive finding has to be rendered by the second respondent with respect to the Survey numbers governed in the No Objection Certificate;

(6) if the report as sought for by the second respondent in the letter dated 17.12.2016, is not furnished already by the first respondent, the same has to be furnished within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order;