IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO : 27344 of 2009 Between: M/s. Gem Granites, rep. by its Power of Attorney & Manager, Shailendra Saklani, Chennai ..... PETITIONER(S) AND The Joint Chief Controller of Explosives, Chennai and others. .....RESPONDENT(S) THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO : 27344 of 2009 ORDER : The petitioner-company claimed to be the owner and possessor of the land in an extent of Ac.3.42 cents in Sy. No.118 of R.L. Puram village, Chimakurthy Mandal, Prakasam District. According to the petitioner, it applied for grant of licence in Form No.17 for construction and storage of explosives under the provisions of the Explosives Act, 1884 (for brevity ‘the Act’) and the 4th respondent-District Revenue Officer, Ongole, Prakasam District, by his proceedings dated 20-07- 1997, issued No Objection Certificate (NOC). In the light of the NOC, the 1st respondent-Joint Chief Controller of Explosives, Chennai, granted the explosive licence under the Act. But because of the disputes between the petitioner and the 6th respondent, the 6th respondent, gave a representation dated 15-11-2009 to the 1st respondent stating that he is the lessee of the land in question and he also has a licence to have quarry operations. Pursuant thereto, the 4th respondent passed an order on 21-11-2009 cancelling the NOC issued in favour of the petitioner. The same is questioned in this writ petition. 2. Heard Smt. N.Sobha, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Ponnam Ashok Goud, learned Assistant Solicitor General, appearing for respondents 1 and 2, learned Government Pleader for Home, appearing for the 3rd respondent, learned Government Pleader for Revenue, appearing for respondents 4 and 5 and Sri Vedula Srinivas, learned counsel for the 6th respondent and perused the material on record. 3. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that before cancelling the NOC issued earlier in favour of the petitioner, the authority i.e. the 4th respondent ought to have heard the petitioner and according to her, had the petitioner been served with notice they would have been in a position to establish his title by producing necessary documents. 4. Sri Vedula Srinivas, learned counsel, who entered appearance for R-6 by way of caveat, submitted that the said order is appealable and for that reason, the writ petition is not maintainable. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner has no right whatsoever for the lawful possession over the land in question and it is only the 6th respondent, who has all documents relating to the lease, as such, the order is perfectly justified. 5. In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel for both the parties, this Court looked into the provision under Rule 115 (1) of the Explosives Rules, 2008, which reads as under: “115. Cancellation of no objection certificate:- (1) No objection certificate granted under rule 103, maybe cancelled by the authority issuing the same or authority superior to it, if such authority is satisfied, that- a) the licensee has ceased to have any right for the lawful possession over the licensed premises; b) the licensee is convicted and sentenced for any criminal offence or ordered to execute under Chapter VIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), a bond for keeping peace for good behaviour; c) the cancellation of no objection certificate is absolutely necessary for public peace and safety: Provided that before cancellation of the no objection certificate, the licensee shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard.” From the above proviso, it is clear that when the NOC issued earlier is required to be cancelled, the person in whose favour such NOC was issued shall be given an opportunity of being heard before such cancellation. Here from a perusal of the order, it is clear that the petitioner was not heard or was given an opportunity to produce the relevant material. For that reason, this Court has no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the said order impugned in this writ petition is liable to be set aside. 6. Of course, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the 6th respondent, it is an appealable order under Rule 121 of the Explosives Rules, 2008, but as the order of cancellation, which is impugned in this writ petition, is without following the due procedure under law, this Court is of the view that there is no need for the petitioner to approach the appellate authority. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed at the stage of admission and the impugned order, dated 21-11-2009 issued by the 4th respondent-District Revenue Officer, Ongole, Prakasam District, is set side and the 4th respondent is directed to issue notice to the petitioner and hear the petitioner as well as the 6th respondent, and thereafter, pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. This exercise shall be completed within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ December 18, 2009 kvr