IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO And THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT APPEAL NO.1168 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 04.07.2008 in W.P.NO.22770 OF 2008 on the ﬁle of the High Court.) Between: The Sanathnagar-Govt. Employees' Welfare Association, (Regd.No. 174/72), SRT - 711, Sanathanagar Colony, Represented by its President, Sri P. Venkateshwara Rao, S/o. Late P. Subba Rao, Aged about 73 years, Occ : Retd Govt. Oﬃcer & Senior Citizen, R/o. TRT 1211, Sanathnagar Colony, Hyderabad - 18 AP. ...APPELLANT AND 1 The Govt. of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Secretary, General Administration (Law and Order - II) Department, AP Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Joint Chief Controller of Expolosives, Govt. of India, Department of Explosives, South Circle, Rukmini Laxmipathi Salai, Egmore, Chennai. 3 The Deputy Chief Controller of Explosives, Kendriya Sada, Sulthan Bazar, Hyderabad A.P. 4 The Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad, At Lakdi-ka-pool, Hyderabad, Ranga Reddy District, A.P. 5 The District Collector, At Lakdi-ka-pool, Hyderabad, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad A.P. 6 The Station House Officer, Police Station Sanathnagar, (Cyberabad Commissioner), At Sanathnagar. Ranga Reddy District AP 7 Sanathnagar Youth Welfare Association, Rep by its President P. Shravan Kumar, S/o. late Ramdass, 45 years, H.No. 7-2- 1263/3SRT- 1008, Industrial Housing Colony, Sanathnagar, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant: MR.O.MANOHER REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME The Court delivered the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO And THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT APPEAL NO.1168 of 2008 JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble Mr Justice B.Prakash Rao) Heard Sri O.Manoher Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant, learned Government Pleader for Home and Sri Ayyapu Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents. At their request, the Writ Appeal itself is taken up for disposal. The appellant is a Government Employees’ Welfare Association, which ﬁles this appeal, inter alia, seeking to assail the order dated 04.07.2008 in W.P.No.22770 of 2008. Following the order of this Court dated 17.10.2003 in W.P.No.21626 of 2003 and batch, the learned Single Judge disposed of the Writ Petition filed by them in terms thereof. The main grievance of the appellant is to the eﬀect that even though such directions have been given, going by the directions of this Court in the aforesaid earlier batch and in spite of possessing due license by the appellant, it is only because of some objections raised on behalf of the contesting respondents herein, who is the seventh respondent, the appellant is not being permitted to carry on their business, which is totally illegal. Learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submitted that having regard to the delicacy and especially, keeping in view the safety norms, as the locality being thickly populated, the question of allowing such shops is not permissible. The seventh respondent-association also objects on the similar lines on the ground that the appellant do not possess any valid license, as it expired in the year 2006 itself and the said shops could not exist. Having considered the submissions made across the bar from either side and on perusal of the material available on record, it is seen that there is no much controversy in this case as regards the facts are concerned. Admittedly, appellant has been carrying on the business since 1980 onwards. Directions, which have already been given by this Court, are being directed to be followed in the present case as well. It only reiterates the factum of possessing valid license under the Explosive Act, 1884 (“the Act” for brevity) and also keeping the safety norms. In respect of either of facts, there is no serious dispute on behalf of the appellant. Though, it has been contended on behalf of the respondents that license has been expired, it is only if the appellant possess valid license as on the day, they should be allowed to do the business. Accordingly, we allow the Writ Appeal reiterating the direction, which has already been given in W.P.No.21626 of 2003 and batch dated 17.10.2003 and also subject to the condition that the appellant possess due license as required under the Act and keep the safety norms. No costs. _________________ (B.PRAKASH RAO, J) _________________ (G.CHANDRAIAH, J) 24th October 2008 Note: Wire at party’s cost B/O RRB