HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition Nos.21419, 21426, 21430, 21434, 21443 & 21437 of 2002 and 3541 of 2003 Common Order: Petitioners, dealers in firecrackers, filed these writ petitions seeking to declare the action of the respondents in instructing them to shift their business in firecrackers from the licenced premises to the outskirts of Hyderabad city as illegal and arbitrary. As similar question arises for consideration in all these writ petitions, as such, they are heard together and disposed of by this common order. 2. Petitioners in all the writ petitions are dealing in firecrackers, which are explosive substances, having obtained licences from the competent authority under the provisions of the Explosives Act, 1884 and the rules made thereunder. In one of the shops located in Siddiamber Bazar, a fire accident occurred on 23-10-2002. In connection with the same, Government constituted a one-man committee by appointing Principal Secretary to Government to enquire into the accident and ascertain the cause thereof and make suggestions to prevent recurrence of such incidents. After receipt of the enquiry report dated 12-11-2002, the Government issued orders in Memo No.1020/L&O.II/A2/2002- 2, GAD, dated 15-01-2003, instructing Commissioners of Police, Collectors and Superintendents of Police, in the District to ensure that firecrackers shops are not allowed in multistoried buildings even if the height of the buildings is below 15 meters; and that the shops should be permitted only in open areas or in single-storied buildings, which are not located in congested localities and which are self-sufficient with firefighting equipment. Based on such instructions issued by the Government, in some of the writ petitions, the Station House Officers concerned issued notice to the petitioners/dealers to shift their business to open spaces in the outskirts of the city in order to avoid fire mishaps. 3. Heard learned counsel for petitioners, the learned Government Pleader for the respondents and perused the material on record. 4. In this batch of cases, primarily, it is the contention of the petitioners that they are doing business in explosive substances in their licenced premises, after obtaining licences under the provisions of the Explosive Substances Act, 1884 and the rules made thereunder; as such during the subsistence of such licences, no directions can be issued to shift their business from the licenced premises to the outskirts of the city. 5. Though the writ petitions are of the years 2002 and 2003, counter affidavits are filed only in two of them, viz., W.P.Nos.21419 of 2002 and 3545 of 2003. 6. In W.P.No.21419 of 2002, the Inspector of Police, Charminar Police Station, filed counter affidavit stating the Police have not interfered with the business of the petitioner and no dealer in firecrackers was threatened by them, as alleged. 7. In W.P.No.3545 of 2003, Secretary to Government (Political) General Administration Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad, filed counter affidavit stating that in view of the fire accident occurred on 23-10-2002, which resulted in death of 12 persons, instructions were issued by the Government, vide memo No.1020/L&O.II/A2, 2002-2, dated 15-01-2003, only to prevent recurrence of such accidents, for the general safety of public and property. 8. Both the above-referred counter affidavits are silent with regard to the licences granted to petitioners under the Act. A perusal of the Explosives Act, 1884 makes it clear that the activity of manufacture, possession, use, sale, etc., of explosive substances is regulated by the provisions of the Act. When the competent authority for grant of licences has issued licences to the petitioners to carry on business within the licenced premises; during the subsistence of such licences, petitioners cannot be directed to vacate their premises and shift to open spaces in the outskirts of the city. 9. To avoid fire accidents in firecrackers shops, based on the enquiry conducted by the one-man committee, while it is open to the Government to address the licencing authorities before grant of licences or at the stage of renewal of such licences, but, when licences are in force, no instructions could have been given to the petitioners to shift their premises, contrary to the terms and conditions of licence. 10. For the aforesaid reasons, I dispose of this batch of writ petitions with a direction to the respondents not to insist the petitioners to shift their business premises, if they are doing such business in their licenced premises pursuant to the licences granted to them under the provisions of the Explosive Substances Act, 1884. However, it is made clear that if the respondents have any objection for grant/renewal of such licences, it is open to them to write to the licencing authorities as regards their objection for grant or renewal thereof. If any such communication is made by the respondents to the licencing authorities under the provisions of the Act and the rules made thereunder, I am sure that such authorities will keep in mind the instructions issued, while granting and renewing the licences for doing business in firecrackers. 11. Subject to above directions, the writ petitions are disposed of. No order as to costs. ___________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J November 20, 2009 lur/MRR