(1) WP. 5497.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 5497 OF 2010 Govind S/o Eknath Shirole, Age : 46 years, Occu.: Business, Agri., R/o Mahanubhav Galli, Parola, Dist.- Jalgaon .. PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, (Copy to be served on A.G.P. High Court, Bench at Aurangabad) 2. The Additional District Magistrate, Jalgaon 3. The Divisional Commissioner, Nasik Division, Nasik .. RESPONDENTS ... Mr. A.M. Gholap, Advocate for the Petitioner Mr. D.R. Korade, AGP for the respondent-State ... CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J. DATED : 5TH AUGUST, 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT:- 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally. 2. By this Petition, the petitioner challenges the orders dated 19.12.2009 rendered by the learned Additional District Magistrate, Jalgaon and dated (2) WP. 5497.2010 23.2.2010 rendered by the learned Divisional Commissioner, Nasik in the proceedings of restoration of the license no. 7 of 2008 to store fireworks. 3. The petitioner was admittedly holder of license no. 6 of 2008 to manufacture the fireworks and license no. 7 of 2008 to store the same. He was having the manufacturing unit situated in land gat no. 44/1/2 and used to carry on such business at Parola. His license to manufacture the fireworks and store the fireworks license were cancelled under section 6(E) of the Explosive Act, 1884. He, therefore, challenged the relevant orders by filing Writ Petition no. 7617 of 2009. A Single Bench of this Court vide order dated 18.11.2009 disposed of the Petition granting liberty to the petitioner to make an application for recalling of the order pertaining to revocation of the licenses. The learned Single Judge (Gavai, J.) directed that the respondent no.2 i.e. the Additional District Magistrate shall consider the application for recalling of the rejection order and after (3) WP. 5497.2010 considering the relevant documents, the same may be disposed of on the merits thereof. Consequently, the petitioner filed afresh application dated 27.11.2009. The respondent no.2 rejected the application vide impugned order dated 18.12.2009 and the appeal preferred by him came to be dismissed by the impugned order dated 23.2.2010 rendered by the respondent no.3. So, again he has come to this Court seeking appropriate relief. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGP for the respondent. 5. I have perused the reply affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents. The reply affidavit filed by one Sandip Pundlikrao Bhosale, who is presently working as Naib Tahsildar, Jalgaon, purports to show that the license granted to the petitioner was suspended for the reason that there took place an accident in the premises of M/s Savitri Firework on 14.4.2009. In that accident, there was loss of human life and a large number of persons were injured. The (4) WP. 5497.2010 averment in the written reply affidavit is that the petitioner was looking after the management of the said factory of Savitri Firework, Bodarde. 6. There is absolutely no tangible evidence on record to show that the petitioner was concerned with the management of the said factory styled as M/s. Savitri Fireworks, Bodarde. It appears, no doubt, that a bizarre accident occurred in the premises of M/s. Savitri Fireworks wherein 27 persons have lost their lives and 57 persons were injured. It also prima facie appears that management of M/s. Savitri Fireworks did not take proper care and caution to secure the lives of workers and to keep the fireworks well insulated from the probable accident. Still, however, concern of the present petitioner with that accident and M/s. Savitri Fireworks is not brought on surface of the record. On the other hand, copy of the report dated 5.10.2009 submitted by the Tahsildar, Parola to the District Magistrate, Jalgaon would show that the premises of M/s Savitri Fireworks are situated in land gat no. 46/2 which is at a (5) WP. 5497.2010 distance of about 460 M from the manufacturing unit of the petitioner which is situated in land gat no. 44/1/2. The report clearly shows that the petitioner is not at all concerned with the business of M/s. Savitri Fireworks. It is important to notice that the respondent no.2 was required to independently consider whether the petitioner had committed any breach of the conditions of the license to manufacture the fireworks and to store the same. The learned District Magistrate did not consider the fact that the concerned authorities had given no objection to continue the licenses of the petitioner. The licenses have been revoked only for the reason that an offence was registered at Parola Police Station vide crime no. 79 of 2004 in respect of the accident which occurred in the premises of M/s. Savitri Fireworks. It is difficult to reconcile as to how the petitioner could be mulcted with the penalty of revocation of the licenses granted to him for the reason that some horrendous accident had occurred in the premise of M/s. Savitri Fireworks. Needless to say, both the impugned judgments and orders of the (6) WP. 5497.2010 respondents no. 2 and 3 are unfounded, arbitrary and perverse. It goes without saying that the respondent no.2 did not properly appreciate the directions of this Court and did not duly consider the application filed by the petitioner. 7. For the reasons afore-stated, I am inclined to interfere with the impugned judgments and orders of the respondents 2 and 3 which are found to be un-sustainable. Hence, the Petition is allowed. The impugned judgments and orders are set aside. The respondent no.2 is directed to restore the licenses no. 6 of 2008 and 7 of 2008 in favour of the petitioner by putting reasonable conditions regarding security measures as required under The Explosive Act, 1884 and The Explosive Rules, 1983 which conditions shall be specified in the renewed licenses. Rule made absolute accordingly. Sd/- [V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] arp