IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 9322 of 2008 Between: M/s. Vishnu Fire Workers Rep.by its Proprietor Sri Vishnudas S/oLate KishanDas Hindu R/o.H.No.21-3-765 Challapura Hyd-2 ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commissioner of Police Cyberabad Lakdikapool Hyd 2 The Regional Fire Officer Central Region Hyd 3 The Dist Officer Hyd 4 The Director General Of Fires & Emergency Service Department Hyd .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the order dt.5-11-2007 in RC No.8375/B1/2003 conﬁrming the orders dt.22-6-2007 of the Regional Fire oﬃcers is illegal and violative of principles of Natural justice and hence null and void and direct the respondents to issue a NOC to the petitioner pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MS.B.S.RADHIKA Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI W. P.No.9322 of 2008 ORDER The petitioner herein who claims to be the owner of the premises bearing D.No. 7-1-212, Shivbagh, Balkampet Road, Ameerpet, Hyderabad together with open land admeasuring about 1833.50 square meters, proposed to start business of sale of ﬁre crackers in the said premises. For the said purpose, since a licence is required under Section.15 of the A.P. Fire Service Act,1999 (for short, ‘the Act’) the petitioner submitted an application dated. 09-05-2007 in the prescribed form before the 2nd respondent-Regional Fire Oﬃcer, Central Region, Hyderabad. Pursuant thereto, the Station Fire Oﬃcer, Panjagutta inspected the premises in question on 22-05-2007 and submitted a report dated 22.5.2007 recommending grant of licence in favour of the petitioner. Subsequently the petitioner also ﬁled a self-appraisal report on 18-06-2007. There was also another joint inspection on 20-06-2007 by the District Fire Oﬃcer, Hyderabad and Assistant District Fire Officer, Hyderabad and nothing adverse was pointed out. However, 2 nd respondent while referring to the report submitted by the District Fire Officer, Hyderabad dated. 20-06-2007, by order dated 22.6.2007 rejected the licence sought by the petitioner on the ground that the premises was surrounded with the commercial apartments and thus it was in violation of Point No.18 of the recommendations of the One Man Commission and the guidelines of the Government of Andhra Pradesh. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the 4th respondent-the Director General of Fires and Emergency Services Department, Hyderabad. The said appeal was rejected by order dated.05-11-2007 holding that the ﬁre safety measures of proposed wholesale ﬁre crackers shop in the petitioner’s premises were not in accordance with the instructions issued in the Government memo dated.15-01-2003 as well as the circular memo dated.28-08-2007. Hence the present writ petition seeking a declaration that the order of the 4th respondent dated.05-11-2007 confirming the order of the 2nd respondent dated.22-06-2007, is arbitrary and illegal. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for the respondents. The learned counsel for the petitioner while relying upon the inspection report of the Station Fire Oﬃcer dated.22-05- 2007 contended that the petitioner’s premises is in conformity with the National Building Code of India 1997 as well as the provisions of the Explosives Act,1884 and the Rules made there under and more over all the protective measures as per the recommendations of the One Man Commission have been adopted and therefore there is absolutely no justiﬁable reason to reject the licence. It is also contended that since the inspection report of the District Fire Oﬃcer, dated.20-06-2007 on the basis of which the rejection order was passed was never furnished to the petitioner, the impugned orders are arbitrary and illegal and in violation of the principles of natural justice. Though no counter-aﬃdavit is ﬁled, the learned Government Pleader sought to justify the impugned orders contending that the rejection of licence on the ground that the premises is situated in a commercial area is in accordance with the norms recommended by the One Man Commission. On a careful consideration of the entire material placed before this Court, I ﬁnd force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order dated 5.11.2007 was in violation of the principles of natural justice. The inspection of the Station Fire Oﬃcer dated.22-05-2007 revealed that the petitioner’s premises satisﬁed all the requirements prescribed under the Act and the Rules made thereunder and it is also in conformity with the norms recommended by One Man Commission. In the circumstances even assuming that the District Fire Oﬃcer in his inspection had found certain lapses, the same should have been put to the petitioner giving him an opportunity to explain the same. It is also relevant to note that in the order passed by the 4th respondent-the appellate authority, the petitioner was held to be ineligible for grant of licence on an additional ground that Nalanda Vidya Bhavan High School, Shiv Bagh, S.R.Nagar was situated in the locality and a representation was received from the management of the said School raising objections for location of the petitioner’s shop for sale of fire crackers. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the said school is situated far away from the petitioner’s premises and even the allegation that the petitioner’s premises is not in conformity with the recommendations of the One Man Commission is incorrect. Such disputed questions of fact cannot be enquired into and decided by this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, since admittedly the petitioner was not given an opportunity to rebut the allegations made by the management of the school and even the inspection report of the District Fire Oﬃcer was not furnished to the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the impugned order dated 5.11.2007 was not in conformity with the principles of natural justice and the matter requires fresh consideration by the 4th respondent. Accordingly the order of the 4th respondent dated. 05-11-2007 in RC No.8375/B1/2003 is hereby set aside and the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the 4th respondent to reconsider the petitioner’s appeal and pass appropriate orders afresh in accordance with law after furnishing a copy of the inspection report of the District Fire Oﬃcer dated.20-06-2007 and after giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. Such exercise shall be completed as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of one(1) week from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. No order as to costs. ___________ G.ROHINI,J 15T H October,2008 TSNR Note:- CC in two days. (B/O) KLP