Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P3 order by which his application for renewal of licence for sale of fireworks, crackers and sparklers was rejected on the ground that C.C.No.1736/2016, is pending against him and stating that he would be free to submit application as and when a judgment was rendered in the said case in his favour.

3. According to the petitioner, there is no provision for refusing renewal of licence on the ground that a crime is registered or is pending against the licensee. Pointing out Rule 118(2) of the Explosives Rules, Smt.Sanjana R. Nair, the learned counsel for the petitioner argued that it is only on conviction and sentence under a criminal offence that an application for renewal of license can be rejected.

4. She also argued that the crime case, WP(C).No.18277 OF 2020(H) which is referred to in the order Ext.P3, is of the year 2016; but the respondents had not taken any action against him till the licence expired on 31.03.2019.

5. The respondents 2 and 3 had filed a counter affidavit supporting the order Ext.P3. It is stated that petitioner had submitted an application for renewal of license on 24.12.2018 and the said application was rejected as per order dated 14.08.2019, based on the objection raised by the police submitting a report that a crime no.409/16 was registered against the petitioner under Section 9B(1) of the Explosives Act, 1884 at Kattur Police Station on 12.04.2016, for illegally storing 6.5kg manufactured fire works and 9.7kg of chinese crackers in a tea shop building and that C.C. 1736/2016 is pending in Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Irinjalakuda. It is stated WP(C).No.18277 OF 2020(H) that Ext.P3 order was passed on his application dated 14.09.2019 requesting for reconsideration of the order of rejection. According to the respondents, the action of the petitioner was in violations of the conditions under rule 83(7) of Explosive Rules and the rejection was under Rule 127 of Explosives Rules 2008, considering the safety and security of the lives of the public. It is also their case that the petitioner has not exhausted from the statutory remedy available before the Appellate authority.

8. Heard the learned Counsel on both sides.

9. Rule 116 of the Explosives Rules, 1988, provides for the circumstances under which a renewal of license can be refused.

"116. Refusal to amend or renew a licence.--(1) The licensing authority refusing to amend or renew a licence shall record the reasons for such refusal in writing.
(2) The licensing authority shall refuse to renew a licence if such licence can be revoked in accordance with the Act or these rules. (3) A brief statement of reasons for refusal to renew a licence shall be given to the holder of the licence on demand unless in any case the WP(C).No.18277 OF 2020(H) licensing authority is of the opinion that it will not be in public interest to furnish such statement.

12. The respondents have stated that the WP(C).No.18277 OF 2020(H) application for renewal of license was rejected in exercise of power under Rule 127 of the Explosive Rules, which reason also does not find a place in Ext.P3 order. At any rate, it is relevant to have a look at Rule 127 of the Rules, which reads as follows:

127. Power of officers to prevent dangerous practices.--(1) If in any matter which is not provided for by any express provision of, or condition of a licence granted under these rules and a Controller or District Magistrate finds any factory, magazine or place where an explosive is being manufactured, possessed or sold, or used or any part thereof, or anything or practice therein or connected therewith or with the handling or transport of explosives to be unnecessarily dangerous or defective so as, in his opinion, to tend to endanger the public safety or the bodily safety of any person, such Controller or District Magistrate may, by an order in writing, require the occupier of such factory magazine, store house or place or the owner of the explosive, to remedy the same within such time as may be specified in the order.