IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.28166 OF 2010 Between: V.Sarath Kumar. … Petitioner AND The District Collector, Ananthapur District at Anantapur and two others. … Respondents This Court made the following: O R D E R : The petitioner, a licencee under the Explosives Act, 1884, and the Rules framed thereunder, filed the present writ petition aggrieved by the proceedings dated 06-11- 2010 issued by the District Collector, Anantapur, whereby his licence stood ‘dispelled interim’ under Rule 118(III) of the Explosives Rules, 2008 and the seized quantity of crackers were directed to be sold by public auction. 2. This Court, by interim order dated 12-11-2010, directed the respondents not to sell the seized crackers. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that prior to the passing of the impugned proceedings dated 06-11-2010 he was not given any notice and that the same is in violation of the Rule. 4. In his counter, the District Collector, Anantapur, stated that the petitioner had violated the conditions of his licence and therefore, his crackers stock had been seized. He stated that owing to these circumstances the licence of the petitioner was ‘dispelled interim’ (temporarily dismissed) under Rule 118 (III) of the Explosives Rules, 2008, as per which a licence is liable to be suspended or cancelled. The counter is however significantly silent on the issue raised by the petitioner as to his not being given any notice prior to the passing of the impugned proceeding. 5. Rule 118 (III) of the Explosives Rules, 2008 reads as under: “ Suspension and revocation or cancellation of licence: Every licence granted under these rules shall- (III) be liable to be suspended or cancelled by an order of the licensing authority for any contravention of the Act or these rules or of any condition contained in such licence, or by order of the Central Government, if it is satisfied that there are sufficient grounds for doing so; PROVIDED that before suspending or canceling a licence under the rule, the holder of the licence shall be given an opportunity of being heard.” 6. The above rule therefore makes it clear that before suspending or canceling a licence, the holder of the licence is entitled as of right to be given an opportunity of being heard. In the present case, the District Collector, Anantapur, resorted to a novel method of ‘temporarily dismissing’ the licence of the petitioner, which is not envisioned by the Rule. However, as the said ‘dispelled interim’ has the effect of suspending/canceling the petitioner’s licence and he is entitled statutorily to prior notice and an opportunity of being heard, there is a clear violation of the Rule by the District Collector, Anantapur, while passing the impugned proceeding dated 06-11-2010. The same is accordingly set aside. This order shall however not preclude the authorities from resorting to action afresh against the petitioner in accordance with the due procedure laid down in the Rules, if warranted. 5. The Writ Petition is allowed. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J Date: 25-03-2011. Note: Issue CC within one week (B/o) KVS/BSB