HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No. 28751, 28752, 28798, 28800 and 28814 of 2014 Date: 25.9.2014 Between :
M/s. Bhavani Agencies Shop No. 17, Sri Kripa market Malakpet, Hyderabad and others … Petitioner and Chief Controller of Explosives Govt of India, Ministry of Commerce and Industry Central Govt office complex, Block A 5th floor, Seminary Hills, Nagpur and another … Respondents The Court made the following:
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No. 28751, 28752, 28798, 28800 and 28814 of 2014 COMMON ORDER:
Since the issue raised in all these writ petitions is similar, they are being disposed of by this common order. The learned senior counsel Sri E Manohar and learned Assistant Solicitor General agreed for final disposal at the admission stage.
2. These writ petitions are instituted by the agencies which are involved in the business of sale of fire crackers, located in the premises of the Agricultural Market Committee (Mahaboob Mansion market yard), Malakpet, Hyderabad. By order dated 8.9.2014/9.9.2014, Deputy Chief Controller of Explosives, Government of India, Hyderabad/second respondent herein passed orders suspending the licences granted to the petitioners holding that running of the shops in the present premises is threat to the safety and security of the people who visit the premises in exercise of power vested by Rule 118 (1) (II) of the Explosive Rules 2008 (for short the Rules). Against the order of the second respondent, an appeal shall lie under Rule 121 of the Rules. Accordingly petitioners filed appeals on 15.9.2014 before the Appellate Authority along with a prayer to suspend the order dated 8.9.2014/9.9.2014. The appeals are stated to be pending consideration before the first respondent. These writ petitions are instituted contending that even though appeals are preferred on 15.9.2014 and acknowledged by the office of the first respondent, so far no orders are passed on the prayer to suspend order of suspension of licence dated 8.9.2014/9.9.2014 and in view of upcoming Dasara and Divali festivals which is peak season for sale of crackers, the delay in passing interlocutory orders is causing severe hardships and suffering.
3. Learned senior counsel contends that orders of suspension are ex-facie illegal as it relies on a correspondence that was not communicated to petitioners. The order refers to a new issue which was not the subject matter of show cause notice issued to them. He contends that petitioners were granted lease of 99 years, lease is in force and there was no objection to operate the fire crackers out let in the market yard premises.
4. Learned Assistant Solicitor General sought to justify the order passed by the second respondent and referred to exhaustive correspondence on the subject. He submits that correspondence would show that petitioners were not authorized to operate the fire crackers outlet in the market yard premises and no clearance was given by police. In fact, Hyderabad Police and Market Yard apprehend danger to people if shops are operated. Government also has not agreed for running of the shops in the premises. These are matters which require consideration by the Appellate Authority while deciding the appeals filed by the petitioners. Since appeals are pending consideration before the Appellate Authority, this Court cannot go into the correctness or otherwise of the orders passed by second respondent dated 8.9.2014/9.9.2014. The only grievance remains in these writ petitions is whether it is justified on the part of the first respondent in not passing orders on the applications filed by the petitioners for grant of interim orders.
5. Having regard to the submissions made by both counsel, writ petitions are disposed of directing the first respondent to consider the prayer made by the petitioners seeking interim suspension of the impugned orders of the second respondent dated 8.9.2014/9.9.2014 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. It is needless to observe that if any adverse decision is taken, petitioners are entitled to workout remedies available to them under law. No costs. Sequel to the same, miscellaneous petitions, if any stand dismissed.
P NAVEEN RAO,J DATE:25.9.2014 TVK HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No. 28751, 28752, 28798, 28800 and 28814 of 2014 Date: 25.9.2014