IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION Nos.21342 of 2002, 19760 of 2004, 20111 of 2004 & 21732 of 2005 WRIT PETITION No.21342 of 2002 Between: Sri Vinayaka Agencies, Rep. by its Prop. B.Ujjwal, 5-3-1070, Osmangunj, Hyderabad, R/o. Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Inspector of Police, Police Station, Begumbazar, Hyderabad. 2 The Chief Controller of Explosives & The Government of India, Department of Explosives, 140, Rukminilaxmipathi Salai, Egmore, Chennai. 3 Station House Officer, Kachiguda Police Station Kachiguda, Hyderabad. (R-3 is impleaded as per Court Order in WPMP 26901/02 dt. 28-10-2002) .....RESPONDENTS 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 a Writ, Order or direction more in the natue of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 1st Respondent in issuing the Impugned Notice vide Procgs No.505/OW/PS-BB/2002, dated 23-10-2002 as illegal, Arbitrary, without power and jurisdiction violative of the principles of natural justice, Articles 14, 16 19(G) and 21 of The Constitution of India and Quash the same and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MS.B.S.RADHIKA Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR HOME Form-NIC-OGS/WP{KRD} WRIT PETITION No.19760 of 2004 Between: 1 Tatikonda Gopi Krishna Fire Works, rep by Proprietor Tatikonda Gopi Krishna s/o late yadagiri R/o H. No. 12-7-45 (Old Number) New No. 12-7-49, SVN Road, Warangal 2 Venugopal S/o late T.Yadagiri R/o H. NO. 8-2-55, New No. 8-2-53, S.V.N. Road, Warangal 3 M/s. Ramash Brothers,rep by Proprietor V. Remesh S/o late viswanatham D. No. 12-7-51/1, New no. 12-7-56, SVN Road. Warangal 4 Garipalli Sadanandam S/o Damodar R/o D. No. 12-7-46, SVR Road, Warangal 5 S. Srinivasulu S/o lte S. Daivam PRoprietor Palani Fire Works, Pinnavam STreet, Warangal ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Joint Collector, Warangal 2 the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Warangal 3 The Government of India, Department of Explosives, rep by Chief Joint Controller 140, Rukmini Lakshmipathi Salai AGMOR, Chennai 4 The Executive Magistrate & Mandal Revenue Officer Warangal, Warangal District R4 is impleaded as per court order dt. 5-11-2004 in WPMP 26770 OF 2004 .....RESPONDENTS 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 issue a Writ, order or driection more in the nature of Writ of Mnadmaus declaring the action of the 1st respondent orally insistingthe petitioners herein to shift their business to out skirts of the city as illegal, arbitrary without power and jurisdiction, violative of principle of natural justice, articles 14, 16 19(1) (g) and 21 fo the Constitution of India Counsel for the Petitioner:MS.B.S.RADHIKA Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.A.RAJASHEKAR REDDY (ASST SOLICITOR GEN) Form-NIC-OGS/WP{TRT} WRIT PETITION NO : 20111 of 2004 Between: Sri Yamsani Narasaiah S/o Nagaiah R/o 2-1-106, Station Road, Jangaon, Warangal District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Joint Collector, Warangal 2 The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Warangal 3 The Government of India, Department of Explosives, rep by Chief Joint Controller, 140, Rukmini Lakshmipathi Salai, AGMOR, Chennai .....RESPONDENTS 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 issue a Writ, order or direction more particulalry one in the natureof Writ of Mandamus, declring the action of the 1st Respondent orally insisting the petitioner herein to shift their business to out skirts ofthe City as illegal, arbitrary, without power and jurisdiction, violative of principles of natural justice, Article 14, 16, 19 (1)(G) and 21 of the Constitution of India Counsel for the Petitioner:MS.B.S.RADHIKA Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR HOME Form-NIC-OGS/WP{TRT} WRIT PETITION NO : 21732 of 2005 Between: 1 Ramesh Kumar, S/o.P.Ramakoti, 15561, 562, Feelkhana, Hyderabad. 2 Ramesh Babu, S/o.Ramchoddas OM Agencies, 15-8-392/1/1/6,7 Lakashmi Market, Feelakhana, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 Inspector of Police Shahinayathugunj Police Station Hyderabad. 2 The Government of India Department of Exploives 140 Rukmini Lakshmipathi Salai, Chennai .....RESPONDENTS 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 a writ, order or direction more in the nature of writ of mandaus, declaring the action of the 1st respondent in issuing the impgned notice vide Proc.464/OW/PSSIG/05, dt.26.9.05 as illegal arbitrary without power and jurisdiction violative of the principles of natural jstice Art.14.16, 19 (g) and 21 of the Constittion of India and quash the same and pass. Counsel for the Petitioner: MS.B.S.RADHIKA Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR HOME Form-NIC-OGS/WP{MPL} THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION Nos.21342 of 2002, 19760 of 2004, 20111 of 2004 & 21732 of 2005 COMMON ORDER: As common questions of facts and law are involved in all these writ petitions, they are being disposed of by this common order. 2. All the petitioners herein are the various licencees to possess and sale the fireworks under the Explosives Act, 1884 read with Rules, 1983 made thereunder (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ and ‘the Rules’). 3. It is the case of the petitioner in W.P.21342 of 2002 that he got valid licence issued by the competent authority i.e. Joint Chief Controller of Explosives, Chennai upto 31.03.2003 for possession and sale of the fireworks of 100 kg. and Chinese crackers/sparkles 1000 kgs. at the premises Door No.5-3-1070, Osmangunj, Hyderabad, vide Licence No.AP.1556/E, dated 10.07.2001. While so, the 1st respondent-the Inspector of Police, Begumbazar Police Station issued the impugned notice No.505/OW/PS-BB/2002, dated 23.10.2002, requesting the petitioner to shift all the stocks of fireworks to outside the city immediately to avoid mishap of fire incidents, failing which necessary action would be initiated against him, in view of the major fire mishap at Shanti Fireworks, Osmangunj, occurred on 23.10.2002, resulting in the death of 13 persons on the sport. The premises in which the petitioner is carrying on the business belongs to A.P.Wakf Board and he is a tenant. The 1st respondent insists upon the petitioner to shift all the stocks outside the city in view of the incident taken place in some other fireworks shop. 4. A counter has been filed by the 1st respondent stating that the impugned notice has been issued in exercise of powers conferred under Rule-179 of the Rules and the petitioner is storing huge quantity more than the permissible quantity and also storing prohibiting items such as coloured match boxes in his shop premises. As per Rule-15 of the Rules, no person on, in or near any place where explosives are stored, or handled shall have in his possession any match boxes. The petitioner has failed to take special precautions as specified in Rules- 19 and 38 of the said Rules. It is further stated that the petitioner is not maintaining the stock register, delivery challan etc. and in fact the petitioner himself shifted the stocks from the said premises pursuant to the impugned notice. It is stated that the petitioner violated the conditions as mentioned in Rule-2, Clause-16, sub-clause (a) (b) (19), 13, 14, 15, 18(2), 19, Rule-38 and therefore, the impugned notice has been issued. 5. It is the case of the petitioners in W.P.19760 of 2004 that they are various lecencees granted by the Joint Chief Controller of Explosives, South Circle, Chennai, valid upto 31.03.2005 for the sale of fireworks not exceeding the specified quantity mentioned in the licences and the action of the 1st respondent-the Joint Collector, Warangal in insisting upon the petitioners to shift their business to the outskirts of the city is illegal and arbitrary. 6. A counter has been filed by the 4th respondent-Executive Magistrate and Mandal Revenue Officer, Warangal, stating that in view of the fact that the present population in the city has swelled by metes and bounds and as such any untoward incident may cause loss of public life and it is not safe to allow the petitioners to carry on business at the present place, they are requested to shift their business to outskirts of the city. 7. The 1st respondent-Joint Collector, Warangal has also filed counter stating that keeping in view the incident took place at Hyderabad, the Government appointed One Man Committee and as per the report of the One Man Committee, which was communicated to all the officers, the petitioners are requested to shift the place of fireworks to some other safer place. 8. The case of the petitioner in W.P.20111 of 2004 is also similar to that of the case of the petitioners in W.P.19760 of 2004, questioning the action of the Joint Collector, Warangal in orally insisting upon the petitioner to shift the business to the outskirts of the city as illegal and arbitrary. 9. It is the case of the petitioners in W.P.21732 of 2005 that they are the licencees for the possession and sale of fireworks granted by the Joint Chief Controller of Explosives, South Circle, Chennai for the specified quantity of fireworks within the licenced premises and the notice issued by the 1st respondent-Inspector of Police, Shahinayathgunj Police Station, Hyderabad, insisting upon the petitioners to shift their stocks of fireworks to outside the city is illegal and arbitrary. The facts of the petitioners in this writ petition are similar to that of facts of the petitioner in W.P.21342 of 2002. 10. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the licences granted in favour of the petitioners are being renewed from time to time and certain further conditions are also imposed and as long as they do not violate the terms and conditions of the licence and the Act and Rules made thereunder, they are entitled to carry on the business as per the licence, and therefore, the other authorities i.e. the police and the revenue are not entitled to ask the petitioners to shift their stocks of fireworks to some other place from the existing licenced place. 11. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that in view of the explosive blasts occurred at various places, the Government ordered magisterial enquiries and based on the enquiry reports, issued necessary instructions in Memo No.1020/L&O- II/A2/2002-2, GAC, dated 15.01.2003 and thereafter in Memo No.154176/L&O-II/A2/04-4, General Administration (Law and Order-II) Department, dated 27.07.2005, all the supervisory authorities in the District are directed to inspect the premises of existing licencees which are in busy/populous areas and the licencees may be asked to shift their business premises at least 500 metres away from residential areas, otherwise, renewal of their licences may be deferred and in future, the licences may not be granted in populous areas. 12. The licencing authority filed counter in one of the writ petitions i.e. in W.P.21732/2005, stating that the licences for possession and sale of specific quantities of fireworks such as fireworks 100 kgs. and Chinese Crackers 100 kgs. in the specified premises in favour of the petitioners have been granted and are being renewed from time to time as per the provisions of the Act and Rules. As per the Rules, the licences are deemed to be in force if the renewal applications are received within time as provided under Rule-165(3) of the Rules. The contention that the petitioners have been conducting the business without any remarks is denied. It is stated that during course of inspection by the Inspecting Officers, certain irregularities were brought to their notice. It is further stated that the powers of search and seizure are vested with the authorities to act upon within the purview of Rule-179 of the Rules and the designated officers are empowered to exercise the powers within their jurisdiction. It is further stated that as per Rule-139 of the Rules and Condition No.9 of the licence in Form-24, the sales of fireworks must be affected from the premises described on the face of licence. 13. Thus, it is the case of the petitioners that the action of the police and the revenue authorities in insisting them to shift their stocks of fireworks from the licenced premises to some other place is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the Rules. 14. Merely because the petitioners are the licencees under the provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder, it cannot be said that the police and the revenue authorities are not entitled to take action against them for the offences and violations committed by them either under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code or under the powers vested in them. But the action of the police and the revenue authorities in these cases in insisting upon the petitioners to shift the place of business, contrary to the terms and conditions of the licences, is illegal and arbitrary. It is for the licencing authority to inspect and take into consideration all the safety measures or insist upon the petitioners to shift the premises. But, when once the licence is granted or renewed, as long as the licence is subsisting, without violation of the conditions of the licence, the Act and the Rules made thereunder, the petitioners cannot be asked to shift their place of business. If their place of business is shifted, it may be difficult to check illegal possession and sale of fireworks. 15. Admittedly, in none of the cases police inspected the premises and registered cases either for possession of excess quantity other than permissible or violation of any other conditions of the licence, provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder. If they are empowered to inspect and take appropriate action, it is always open for them to inspect the premises and take appropriate action for such violations. But, without any inspection and without giving any reasonable opportunity, I am of the opinion that issuance of the impugned notices by the police and the Joint Collector, requesting the petitioners to shift their premises from the licenced premises to some other place, is illegal and arbitrary, and contrary to the terms and conditions of the licence. If any powers are delegated to the police and the revenue authorities, it is always open for them to take appropriate action on the delegated powers. If any Rules are violated such as Rule-15 for possession of matchboxes at the place of explosives or violation of any other Rules, it is always open for the competent authorities to take appropriate action. But, without taking appropriate action in accordance with law and Rules, the impugned notices and oral instructions to shift the premises to other place other than the licenced premises is illegal and arbitrary. If the possession and sale of the fireworks as per the licence granted to the petitioners is dangerous or defective, it is always open for the Controller of the Licencing Authority, by an order, require the occupier of such factory, store house or place or the owner of the explosive to remove or shift the same within such time as may be specified in the order. If the police think that the grant of licence in a thickly populated area is dangerous to public lives, they can as well pursue the Controller to take appropriate action, but without requiring the licencees to shift their places by the competent authority, it may not be open for the police and the Joint Collector to insist upon the petitioners to shift their place of business from the licenced premises to some other place. 16. I am of the opinion that the Licencing Authority under the Act and the Rules made thereunder shall take a uniform policy decision with regard to grant or renewal of licence at the safer place, preferably outside the thickly populated area. 17. Under Rule-179 of the Rules, it is always open for the authorized officers to make search and seizure under the Rules, but in none of the cases any search or seizure by the authorized officer was made. Without following the procedure prescribed in law, the impugned action of the respondents, insisting upon the petitioners to shift their respective business premises to some other place is illegal and arbitrary, and therefore, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. 18. These Writ Petitions are, accordingly, disposed of, setting aside the impugned orders. The respondents are directed not to insist upon the petitioners to shift their respective business premises to some other place, without following due procedure prescribed in law and without taking recourse for the alleged violation of the terms and conditions of the licences or the provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder. No order as to costs. ___________________ V.ESWARAIAH,J Dated: 24.07.2008 Dsr ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1 The Inspector of Police, Police Station, Begumbazar, Hyderabad. 2 The Chief Controller of Explosives & The Government of India, Department of Explosives, 140, Rukminilaxmipathi Salai, Egmore, Chennai. 3 Station House Officer, Kachiguda Police Station Kachiguda, Hyderabad. 4 The Joint Collector, Warangal 5 The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Warangal 6 The Executive Magistrate & Mandal Revenue Officer Warangal, Warangal District 7 Inspector of Police Shahinayathugunj Police Station Hyderabad. 8 The Government of India Department of Exploives 140 Rukmini Lakshmipathi Salai, Chennai 9. 2CCs to 10. 2CD copies