Civil Writ Petition No. 10433 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.M. No. 1496 of 2011 in/and Civil Writ Petition No. 10433 of 2009 Date of decision: 08.02.2011 Deepak Kumar ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH Present: Mr. O.P. Gupta , Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.S. Pattar, Sr. DAG, Haryana for the State. Mr. C.M. Sharma, Advocate for respondent No. 4. RANJIT SINGH J. The petitioner is the owner in possession of SCO No. 279, Sector 20, Panchkula measuring 5½ x 22 meters. This showroom was allotted to the petitioner by HUDA for carrying out his business. On an application made by the petitioner, he was issued Explosives Licence for fireworks (crackers) by District Magistrate on 13.01.2006. This licence was issued to the petitioner after getting reports and NOCs from various concerned departments like SSP Panchkula, XEN UHBVNL, XEN HUDA and SDO (Civil), Panchkula. These reports are annexed with the petition as Annexures P-1 to P-4. As per the petitioner, the location is in open space with parking area and has an easy access for Fire Brigade. It is stated that there is no populated area nearby. The Explosives Licence, as per the petitioner, was issued to him after spot inspection and was valid up to 31.03.2007. Respondent No. 4 also issued licence upto 25.03.2009 Civil Writ Petition No. 10433 of 2009 2 for extended quantities of crackers and/or sparklers and fireworks as mentioned therein. The petitioner, thereafter, had filed an application on 07.03.2007 for renewal of Explosives Licence before respondent No. 2, who called for report and NOC afresh from SDM Panchkula, SSP Panchkula ad Fire Brigade Officer, Panchkula. The NOCs were issued and no objections against the renewal were given. The Deputy Commissioner without any valid reason, informed the petitioner that his shop is situated in the market which is not appropriate from safety angle and the petitioner was asked to shift his shop to a suitable site away from populated area. The petitioner prayed for renewal of the licence as it was under the same conditions that the premises of two licences were situated near petrol pump and populated area. Despite no objections, the Deputy Commissioner has declined to renew the Explosives Licence issued to the petitioner and that is how the petitioner has filed this writ petition to impugn the said order. The Court, after hearing the counsel for the parties had decided to constitute the Committee consisting of Deputy Commissioner, SSP, Panchkula, Fire Officer of the concerned area and the Executive Officer of the Municipal Corporation, Panchkula to visit the spot in presence of the petitioner after issuing appropriate notice and to submit recommendation within one month after examining all the aspects particularly the safety aspect to see if the shop could be used for the purpose of storing explosives. The committee has submitted its report. The Committee has opined that the place is not suitable for keeping the explosives. The inspection Civil Writ Petition No. 10433 of 2009 3 was meant for assurance of the Court and so was got conducted. That being the purpose, the counsel for the petitioner would not be justified in filing objection. He even then has chosen to file objection to this inspection report through miscellaneous application which is listed today. Once the Committee has given a report on being constituted under the direction of this Court, the parties would not have any justifiable right to object the report. Ordinarily, the Court was bound to accept the view of Deputy Commissioner as it is a question of safety of general public. Still to assure itself the court had constituted a Committee to again examine the suitability and give report. Nothing more can be done to assure that action is well considered and proper. There is no reason to admit the objections on record and the prayer in the application is rejected. It is a question of safety of public at large. There being no reason to doubt the report, I would go by the same. In fact there are no good reasons to doubt or dispute the report. Submission that Deputy Commissioner has passed this order arbitrarily is without any basis or substance. The Deputy Commissioner alongwith other responsible officers have now visited the site and they are unanimously of this view that the place is not fit for restoring the explosives etc. There is no valid reason to interfere in exercise of writ jurisdiction. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. February 08, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ts JUDGE