Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: explosive rules in Ajit Kumar Agarwal vs The Union Of India Through The Chief ... on 1 August, 2016Matching Fragments
Heard counsel for the parties.
The only prayer of the petitioner is to direct the competent authority under the Explosives Act 1884 and the Explosives Rules 2008 framed thereunder to allow the petitioner to lift stock of explosive stored in his godown and dispose of the same in terms of Rule 119 of the Explosive Rules 2008.
It is an admitted state of fact that petitioner had an explosive licence issued by the Joint Chief Controller of Explosives East Circle Office, Kolkata vide Annexure-1 dated 2nd December 2015. The said license has been cancelled by the competent authorities/controller of Explosives by order at Annexure-15 dated 21.06. 2016. Petitioner does not intend to challenge the same. He however relied upon the provisions of Rule 119 which is quoted hereunder, to seek appropriate direction from the licensing authority for its disposal as it may cause some hazard.
Learned counsel for the Respondents only submits that if the petitioner approaches the licensing authority with an appropriate application along with necessary facts, documents and description and quantity of explosives in his possession in the premises in question, it may be considered in accordance with law and the provisions of Section 119 within a reasonable time.
Considering the aforesaid statement of facts and the submission made, this writ petition is being disposed of with the observation that if the petitioner approaches the competent authorities/licensing authorities under Explosive Act 1884 and the Explosive Rules 2008 with the aforesaid prayer by way of representation, the same shall be considered in accordance with law preferably within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order along with the said representation.