Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

10. The petitioners submits that respondent No.2 cannot deny the renewal of explosive licenses due to pendency of C.C.No.3891 of 2021 inspite of the fact that this Court has set-aside the said suspension orders on 10.02.2021 and further submits that petitioners have no connection with the alleged transportation of 10 tons of the ammonium nitrate which is a subject matter of C.C.No.4076 of 2021 arising out of Crime No.420 of 2019. As per the charge sheet in C.C.No.3891 of 2021 (Crime No.420 of 2019), 10 tons of ammonium nitrate seized on 26.08.2019 does not belong to the petitioner i.e., M/s.Raja Shree Chem Tech or M/s Rajashree Enterprises instead, it belongs to one M/s Raja Rajeshwari Chemicals and Allied, owned by Mr. Ravindra Tatipalli, which is located 8 kilometers away from the petitioner's factory at 1-5-12, Sruthi Nagar, Yadadri, Bhongir, Telangana (GST No.36AZZ PT344 7Q1ZZ). It is further submitted that respondent No.2 cannot deny the renewal of explosive licenses due to pendency of C.C.No.3891 of 2021 as it is in contravention to Rule 118 of the Explosives Act, 2008. It is further submitted that as per Rule 118 (1) (b), the license will be cancelled only if the person is convicted or sentenced in any criminal offence. It is further submitted that a third party affidavit was also filed by the said M/s Raja Rajeshwari Chemicals and Allied stating that he is not uncle or relative of the petitioner and he is not connected with the business of the petitioners as he had a separate entity with GSTIN No.36AZZ PT344 7Q1ZZ and his warehouse is located at 8 kilometers away from the petitioners factory. It is submitted that Petitioner No.3 is Accused No.1 in C.C.No.3891 of 2021 and has nothing to do with the alleged crime in C.C.No.3891 of 2021 and the petitioner No.3 has not been convicted in the said crime and the respondent No.2 keeping in view of the registration of the crime in C.C.No.3891 of 2021 against the petitioner No.3 is not revoking the suspension of license. The petitioner further submits that respondent No.2 has revoked the licenses of similarly placed entities/individuals who have pending criminal cases and one such entity being M/s Eswar Enterprises whose license was renewed pending F.I.R.No.621/G1/2021 dated 26.04.2021. As such the conduct of respondent No.2 is discriminative, arbitrary and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners further submit that as per Rule 112 (5) of the Explosive Rules, 2008 there is a deeming provision, as such the Licenses are deemed to be in force. The petitioner further submits that the shell life of ammonium nitrate is between six months to one year and the petitioners are not in business for the last five years, though they possess proper infrastructure to run its business and have sustained huge losses on account of suspension of Licenses and Seizure of stock and Godown. It is further submitted that the Staff, labour and all stake holders and are on the verge of bankruptcy, as such the licenses are to be renewed by the respondents at the earliest.

11. The respondent No.2 vide proceedings dated 17.10.2024 informed the petitioners referring to letter dated 22.03.2021 that necessary action can be taken after out come of the judgment in Crime No.420 of 2019 and as per the directions of the Court in C.C.No.3891 of 2021. Questioning the proceedings dated 17.10.2024, the present writ petition has been filed.

12. The respondent No.3/Deputy Controller of Explosives has filed counter and would submit that the licenses granted to the petitioners was granted under Ammonium Nitrate Rules, 2012 and does not attract the provision of Rule 118 of Explosives Rules, 2008. It is submitted that the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Shamshabad Zone, Cybderabad vide letter dated 28.08.2019 and 09.09.2019 informed the office regarding registration of case against petitioner No.3, proprietor of M/s. Rajashree Enterprises in RGI Airport P.S for illegal sale of Ammonium Nitrate and further the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad visited the office on 31.08.2019 and informed that the consignment of Ammonium Nitrate (quantity 10 tons) was being transported on 26.08.2019 from M/s. Rajashree Enterprises/Rajashree Chemtech firms in Bhongir to FSF Chemicals in Madanapalle, Andhra Pradesh showing as consignment of Sodium Nitrate. Based on the said facts, further actions were taken as per provisions of Ammonium Nitrate Rules, 2012 and the licenses were suspended vide suspension orders dated 15.10.2019 for violation and contravention of provisions of Ammonium Nitrate Rules, 2012 under which the subject licenses were granted. Further, The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Shamshabad Zone, Cyberabad vide his letter dated 28.06.2019 and 19.09.2019 informed regarding the registration of crime against petitioner No.3, proprietor of M/s. Rajashree Enterprises in RGI Airport P.S for illegal sale of Ammonium Nitrate, as such an explanation was called from M/s Rajashree Enterprises vide show cause notice dated 13.09.2019. The petitioner No.1 has replied to the show cause notice on 03.10.2019 denying that the said consignment belong to him and that the reply to the show cause notice was not found satisfactory since no documents/online records in Form R-6, R-7, R-11 (a) and R-11 (b) of transaction of purchase and sale of Ammonium Nitrate were submitted to prove the genuineness of the sale and receipt of Ammonium Nitrate. It is further submitted that as per Ammonium Nitrate Rules, 2012 having more than 45% Ammonium Nitrate by weight has been brought under licensing for regulating the manufacturing, conversion, import, export, bagging, transport and possession for sale or use of Ammonium Nitrate. It is further submitted that Crime No.420 of 2019 has been registered against the subject firm and no information has been received from the Police Authorities regarding disposal of the case. It is further submitted that pilferage of Ammonium Nitrate, being an explosive, is serious in nature and endanger the security of Public and Nation. It is further submitted that Deputy Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad vide letter dated 28.08.2024 has communicated that one Akkanpally Raj Kumar (petitioner No.3) was arrested on 28.08.2019 and sent to judicial remand and charged on 31.08.2021 and obtained C.C.No.3891 of 2021, and the case is pending trial. It is further submitted that the Chief Controller of Explosives, Nagpur issued letter dated 22.03.2021 to petitioner No.1 instructing not to purchase and sell ammonium nitrate other than the return of stock to the supplier i.e., M/s Smartchem Technologies Limited along with request to the Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad to dispose off the stock of ammonium nitrate (10 MT) seized by him in Crime No.420 of 2019 of RGI Airport P.S. from the vehicle presently stored in the magazine of M/s Patel Mining Services in the interest of Public safety. It is further submitted that the status of the license as active in the PESO portal can only be updated after the revocation of the suspension as C.C.No.3891 of 2021 is pending trial. It is further submitted that to the Show cause notice dated 27.07.2021 issued by the Chief Controller of Explosives, as per the records, the petitioner had not submitted any reply. It is further submitted that the subject licenses were suspended as per the provision of the Rule 42 of the Ammonium Nitrate Rules, 2012 in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 6 (E) of the Explosives Act, 1884 for contravention of the Rules and Condition of the subject license. It is further submitted that as ammonium nitrate is an explosive as defined under Rule 2 (b) of Ammonium Nitrate Rules, 2012, pilferage of Ammonium Nitrate is of serious nature as the same can be used in combination to produce a practical effect by explosion endangering public life/national security and also referred to the explosion occurred in Beirut in the year 2020 as an example which caused huge loss to human life and property and eventually prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

13. The petitioners have filed reply reiterating the submissions made in the writ petition and would submit that the petitioners prior to the expiry of the licenses has made an application for renewal of the licenses on 04.03.2024 by paying requisite fees, therefore, the licenses of the petitioners are deemed to be renewed and in force as on this date, and despite the same, the respondents have not uploaded the status of the petitioners as "Active" on PESO portal and the respondents have neither replied nor rejected the renewal applications dated 04.03.2024. Further, as per Section 6 E (6) of the Explosives Act, 1884 read with Rule-118 of the Explosive Rules, 2008, if the court convicts the holder of a license of any offence under this Court or the rules made thereunder, may suspend or revoke a license and if the conviction is set-aside on appeal or otherwise, the suspension or revocation shall become void and in the present case, the petitioner No.3 was not convicted in the aforesaid crime, therefore the contentions of the respondents that the revocation of suspension of license can be considered only after the outcome of C.C.No.3891 of 2021 against the petitioner No.3 is unsustainable. It is further submitted that the petitioners have supplied the ammonium nitrate to the license holders who generally uses for agricultural purposes and the police have only seized 10 tons of ammonium nitrate that does not belong to the petitioners but belongs to Raja Rajeshwari Chemicals & Allied, Bhongir and in fact if ammonium nitrate is mixed with other substances to form AN-based explosives, slurry explosives etc., causes imminent danger to the public and in the present case police had seized only ammonium nitrate and not an AN-based explosive, which causes imminent danger to the public, as such the petitioners have not violated the provisions of Section 6E (6) of the Explosives Act, 1884 read with Rule-118 of the Explosive Rules, 2008 and Rule 42 of Ammonium Nitrate Rules, 2012 and the petitioner as on date is not convicted.

SUBMISSIONS OF PETITIONERS:

14. Sri B. Chandrasen Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing for petitioners would submit that the respondent No.4 has granted three licenses to possess and manufacture Ammonium Nitrate to petitioner Nos.1 and 2 initially valid till 31.03.2019 and were extended till 31.03.2024. A charge sheet dated 31.08.2021 was filed in C.C.No.3891 of 2021 in F.I.R.No.420 of 2019 for the offences under Sections 419, 420, 468, 473 of IPC and Section 9 (B) read with 5 of Explosive Act, 1884 and 6 (6), 9 and 22 of Ammonium Nitrate Rules, 2012. The respondent No.2 has issued 1st show cause notice on 13.09.2019 calling upon the petitioner why the subject license should not be suspended. Petitioner replied to the said show cause notice on 03.10.2019 and on 15.10.2019, the license of the petitioners was suspended as an interim measure by respondent No.2. The said suspension was challenged by petitioner by way of filing W.P.No.23355 of 2019 and 23356 of 2019 and this Court by vide common order dated 10.02.2021 was pleased to set-aside the suspension order dated 15.10.2019 and remanded back to respondent No.2 directing to consider the issue afresh taking into account the explanation dated 03.10.2019. Thereafter, the respondent No.3 on 02.07.2021 issued 2nd show cause notice alleging that there is a shortfall of 3392.2 MT of Ammonium Nitrate and why the license of the petitioners should not be revoked. The petitioner has replied to the said show cause notice on 26.07.2021. The petitioner filed W.P.No.7474 of 2024 and 7553 of 2024 challenging the action of the respondent No.2 in not complying the orders dated 10.02.2021 of this Court and updating the status of the petitioner as ACTIVE in PESO website and this Court vide common order dated 09.07.2024 disposed of the said writ petitions by setting aside the show cause notices dated 02.07.2021 and directed respondents to pass appropriate order considering the representation dated 26.07.2021. The respondent No.2 on 27.08.2024 has issued notice directing the petitioners to submit details of sale and purchase of ammonium nitrate as there is a difference of 3392.2 MT of Ammonium Nitrate and also sought the status of Cr.No.420 of 2019. This Court in W.P.No.24443 of 2024 by order dated 03.10.2024 directed the petitioners to submit an explanation enclosing particulars of Cr.No.420 of 2019 and the charge sheet and further directed the respondents to consider the same. On 04.10.2024 the petitioner submitted detailed explanation and would submit that as per findings in C.C.No.3891 of 2021 arising out of Cr.No.420 of 2019 the 10 tons of ammonium nitrate seized on 26.08.2019 does not belong to the petitioner i.e., M/s. Raja Shree Chem Tech or M/s Rajashree Enterprises and it belongs to a separate entity i.e., M/s Raja Rajeshwari Chemicals & Allied, a proprietary concern owned by Mr. Ravindra Tatipalli, which is 8 kilometers away from the petitioner factory. The respondent No.2 on 17.10.2024 issued speaking order in compliance to the order of this Court dated 03.10.2024 wherein it was mentioned that in view of registration of Crime No.420 of 2019 under P.S.RGI Airport for which investigation is in process and judgment by the Court has not been delivered till date, revocation of suspension cannot be considered and necessary action would be taken against the petitioner after outcome of the judgment in Crime No.420 of 2019 and as per the directions of Hon'ble Court in C.C.No.3891 of 2021. Learned senior counsel would further submit that Third party affidavit has been filed by Mr. Ravindra Tatipalli on 18.10.2024 of M/s. Raja Rajeshwari Chemicals and Alied stating that it is a separate entity. Thereafter, on 11.11.2024 W.P.No.24443 of 2024 was withdrawn as impugned proceedings dated 17.10.2024 was passed with a liberty to challenge the same by virtue of a fresh writ petition. Learned senior counsel further submits that suspension was revoked in a case of M/s. Eswar Enterprises despite crime No.167 of 2021 pending for far more serious offence of high explosive composition of Penta Erythritol Nitrate (PETN) seized as per charge sheet. Learned senior counsel further submits that as per Section 6 E (6) of the Explosives Act, 1884 read with Rule-118 of the Explosive Rules, 2008, if the Court convicts the holder of a license of any offence under this Court or the rules made there under may suspend or revoke a license and if the conviction is set aside on appeal or otherwise, the suspension or revocation shall become void and in the present case, the petitioner No.3 was not convicted as such the contention of the respondents that the revocation of suspension of license can be considered only after the outcome of C.C.No.3891 of 2021 against the petitioner No.3 is not sustainable. In support of his case, learned senior counsel for the petitioners relied on a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in MOHINDER SINGH GILL V. CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSIONER 1. Learned senior counsel further submits that ammonium nitrate is used for agriculture, pharmaceuticals and to make it an explosive it requires catalyst and the petitioner requires an active access to PESO for doing business and the petitioner is ready to comply with any of the conditions that are imposed and subject to result of the criminal case. Learned senior counsel draws attention of this Court to Rule 118 of the Explosive Rules, 2008 which is extracted for reference: