IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.30344 of 2012 BETWEEN Sri Shanmukha Sai Traders AND The Collector & District Magistrate and another ... PETITIONER ...RESPONDENTS The Court made the following:
ORDER:
Heard.
2. Petitioner is a partnership firm, which carries on business in all varieties of fire works in the name and style of Sri Shanmukha Sai Traders. The said partnership is governed by a partnership deed dated 09.11.2011 and the deponent of the affidavit is the managing partner of the petitioner firm. It is stated that petitioner has applied for appropriate Permission/No Objection Certificate to the Collector and District Magistrate, respondent No.1, for the purpose of construction of Explosives Magazine and to carry on business in fire works in an extent of Ac.0-30 cents in Survey No.154/2 of Kothapet village. It appears that respondent No.1 called for various reports from the Revenue, Police, Fire and Panchayat Departments and so far as the Tahsildar is concerned, no objection certificate was recommended to be issued so also by the Gram Panchayat, Kothapet vide their resolution dated 02.01.2012 and the District Fire Officer also recommended for issuance of no objection certificate to the District Collector.
3. While the said proceedings are pending, no objection from the Superintendent of Police, East Godavari District was awaited.
Petitioner states that the Superintendent of Police called for remarks from the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Amalapuram, who, while expressing no objection with regard to all other aspects, informed that that one of the partners of the petitioner firm viz., Mr. M. Veera Venkata Satyanarayana is an accused in P.R.C.No.4 of 2012 arising out of Crime No.124 of 2008 on the file of Kothapet police station and as such, the no objection certificate was not recommended. In view of the said report, respondent No.2 declined to grant no objection certificate. Consequently, therefore, respondent No.1 did not pass any orders on the petitioner’s application. The present writ petition is, therefore, filed questioning the refusal of respondent No.2 to grant no objection certificate.
4. Counter affidavit is filed by respondent No.2 wherein the consideration of petitioner’s application and no objection from the nearby site owners are noted in para 4 of the counter affidavit in a tabular form wherein it is mentioned that the nearby site owners have expressed no objection for construction of the explosives magazine by the petitioner and that there are also arrangements made by the petitioner in the proposed building to prevent fire accidents and no objection certificate from fire service authority was also taken.
It is also stated that the explosives magazine shed constructed is suitable for storage of explosives magazines and there are no dwelling houses nearby the storage magazine sheds and only agricultural lands are available surrounding the shed. It was also stated that the site owner is the wife of the applicant, who had applied for explosives storage license and the site is already examined by the village revenue Officer and Surveyor. The resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat supporting the request of the petitioner was also enclosed and the site is stated to be 6 KMs away from NH.No.216.
5. Thus, while recording all the said reports in favour of the petitioner, no objection certificate was, however, rejected by respondent No.2 under his purported exercise of power under Section 6(B) and (C) of the Explosives Act, which is extracted hereunder:
“6(C) where the licensing authority deems it necessary for the security of the public peace or for public safety to refuse to grant such license”.
A reading of clause (C), as above, would show that the licensing authority shall refuse license only if public peace and public safety is likely to be endangered. However, in the present case all reports are in favour of the petitioner including resolution recommending no objection certificate by the local authorities. The counter affidavit, therefore, merely reiterates that because one of the partners of the petitioner firm is an accused in P.R.C.No.4 of 2012 before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kothapeta, the no objection certificate, as sought for, is not recommended.
6. In my view, the criteria applied by respondent No.2 in not considering the grant of no objection certificate, merely on that ground that one of the partners of the petitioner firm is facing a criminal case and that the petitioner may not follow rules and regulations, prescribed by the authorities, does not appear to be a valid ground. Firstly, the petitioner is a partnership firm and secondly, there cannot be an assumption that the petitioner firm may not follow the rules and regulations merely because of one of its partners is facing a criminal case. The Superintendent of Police also must keep in mind that the said case may end in acquittal of the concerned accused in which case petitioner firm would unnecessarily suffer for non consideration of its application. In my view, therefore, the Superintendent of Police must examine the request of the petitioner on the touch stone of the requirements under the Explosives Act and since all the appropriate reports are with the Superintendent of Police, keeping in view the compliances under that Act and keeping in view the public safety, an appropriate decision has to be taken by respondent No.2.
Hence, non-consideration of the petitioner’s application only on the ground of the pendency of P.R.C.No.4 of 2012 cannot be approved.
Writ petition is, therefore, disposed of directing respondent No.2 to reconsider the petitioner’s request for grant of no objection certificate in accordance with law in the light of observations made hereinabove and take appropriate decision and communicate the same to respondent No.1 so as to enable respondent No.1 to take appropriate further decision as to whether the license is to be granted to the petitioner or not. Since the matter is pending for sufficiently quiet a long time, respondent No.2 shall take a decision expeditiously, in the matter, preferably, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J October 20, 2014 LMV