Mis.Sri Venkate v. 1. Union of lndia

Petition under section 151 CPC praying that in the circumStances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may he pleased to direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to conduct business in terms of the Explosive license bearing No. E/HQ/TG1221773 (E 72020), without reference to proceedings bearing No. E/HQiTG/22t773 (E 72020\ dated 15.o1 .2(125 issued by the respondent No 4. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI T. BALA MOHAN REDDY, REPRESENTING SRI K. RAJASHEKAR Counsel for the Respondents: MS. N.V. RAJYA LAXMI, REPRESENTING SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR Dv' SOLICITOR GEN' OF INDIA The Court made the following: ORDER 1i THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SRTENIVAS RAO WRIT PETITION No.4299 oF 2025 ORDER: This writ petition is hled for the following relief: '.. . to issue an order, direction or Writ, more in the nature of a writ of mandamus declaring the action of respondent No.4 in issuing the impugned proceedings bearing No E/He/TG/22/773 (E Z2O2O|, dated 15.01.2025, Explosive license of the petitioner bearing No E/HQ/TG/22/TZ3 (E 72O2O), which is va,lid upto 31.03.2025 was kept in abeyance and further in not allowing the petitioner to conduct business as illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice and violation of orders passed by this Honble court dated 72.Oa.2O24 in W.P.No. 19472 of 2024 apart from being violative of Article 14, t9 (11 (g) and 2 t of Constitution of India and consequently to set aside the proceedings bearing No E/He/TG/22/723 (E T2o2Ol dated 15.07.2025 issued by respondent No 4, further direction to respondents to not to interfere wittr the business of the petitioner except with due process of law."

2. Heard Mr. T. Ba-la Mohan Reddy, learned counsel representing Mr. K. Rajashekar, learned counsel for the i l I 2 petitioner, Ms. N.V' Rajya Lar<rni' learned counsel representing the learned Deputy Solicitor Gent:raL of India appearing on behalfofthe respondents'

3. With the consent of the respective parties' the writ petition is being disposed of at the stage of admission' Facts giving rise to frling of this writ petition briefly 4 stated are that the petitioner is the proprietar5z lum and doing business of explosives in the narne and style of M/s. Sri Venkateshwara Minerals from 2015 onwards' Respondent No.2 issued explosive license on 12'1 i'2015 for a period of hve years and the same is valid up to gO.O2.2O2O. Thereafter, the competent authority renewed. the said license for a period of alother five years and the same is valid up to 31'O3'2025'

5. Petitioner averred that basing upon the complaint lodged by one Mr. Pandey Rao, Crime No'136 'tf 2O2O 7 Li 3 was registered on 27.1O.2O2O by Darapalli police Station, Nizamabad District under the provisions of Section 5 of the Explosives Act, 1884 (for short, "the Act"). In the said crime, the petitioner was falsely implicated as Accused No.2. The petitioner further averred that basing on ttre complaint lodged by one Someshwari, Sub-lnspector of Police, Ameenpur, alother case was registered as Crime No.2O8 of 2024 on the lile of Ameenpur police Station under Section 353 IPC and Section 5 of the Act, wherein the petitioner was implicated as Accused No.l. The petitioner further averred that he frled quash petition to quash Crime No.2O8 of 2024 and the same is pending before this Court.

6. While things stood thus, respondent No.3 has issued show cause notice on 1I.06.2024 allegqng ttrat the petitioner has violated Rule 7 (Control over manufacture, import, export, transport, possession for sale or use of 4 ( \ explosives) and Rule 1O(4) (Dispatch of explosives l-o non- license hotder) of the Explosives Rules, 2008 (for short, "the Rules"). Thereafter, respondent No.4 had issued proceedings on O9.O7.2O24 suspending the explosive iic"rr"e issued in favour of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the said proceedings, the petitioner hled W.P.No.19472 of 2024 a;ad this Court by order dated 12.O8'2024 allowed the said writ petition by setting aside the proceedings dated 09.07.2024 and directed the petitioner to submit explanation to the show cause notice dated 11.06.2024 issued by respondent No.4 therein within a period. of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the sairl order and the respondents therein were directed to c':lnsider the explalation submitted by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the provisions of the Explosives Act, 1908 and the Rules made thereunder. Pursuant to the said order, the petitioner sutrmitted explanation lreply to respondent No.3 herein on v 5

25.09.2024 denying tJ.e aJlegations mad.e by respondent Nos.3 and 4. However, respondent Nos.3 and 4, without passing any order on the explanation submitted by the petitioner issued the impugned proceedings dated 07.IO.2O24 and consequentia_l letter dated 15.01.2025 a,,d they are interfering with the business of the petitioner, which is contrary to law.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that this Court allowed W.p.No. Ig4Z2 of 2024 on 12.O8.2024 and. set aside the suspension order dated O9.O7.2O24 passed by respondent No.4 and pursuant to the directions issued by this Court, the petitioner submitted reply/expranation to respondent Nos.3 and 4 on 25.09.2024. However, respondent No.3 without considering the petitioner's explanation issued the impugned proceedings dated 07.1O.2O24 and 15.01.2025 ald the same are in gross violation of the principles of 6 \ natural justice. He further contended that in the absence of any order suspending the explosive license issued in favour of the petitioner, the resp,ondent authorities are not entitled to interfere with the brrsiness activities of the petitioner and the same is contrar5z to 1aw.

8. Per contra, leamed counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that the petitioner without availing the a-lternative remedy of appeal AS provided under the provisions of Section 6(F) of the Act and Rule I2l of the Rules straight away approached this Court and liled the present writ petition, which is not maintainable in law. She further submits that unless the petitioner succeeds in Crime Nos. 136 of 2O2O and 208 of 2024, tfrc petitioner is not entitled to continue the business and that respondent No.4 after considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner pursuant to the .---!tt-:r ..,, 7//t o 7 show cause notice dated 1I.06.2024 has rightly passed the impugned proceedings dated OT.lO.2O24 and 15.01.2025. She also submits that as on date, the respondents have not suspended/revoked the license issued in favour of the petitioner and the proceedings a_re pending before respondent Nos.2 and 3 and therefore, the writ petition is premature one.

9. Having considered the riva_l submissions made by the respective parties and after perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that the explosive license issued by the competent authorit5r in favour of the petitioner is valid up to 31.03.2025. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is accused in two crimes, namely, Crime No. 136 of 2O2O on the fite olthe Darapalli police Station and Crime No. 208 of 2024 on the hle of the Ameenpur Police Station, and the same are pending. 8

10. Record further revea'ls that respondent No'4 issued proceedings on Og.O7.2024 suspending the explosive license issuect in favour of the petitioner exercising tJee powers conferred under the provisions of Section 6(F) of the Act and Rule 118 of the Rules and directed the petitioner to submit explanation by granting 21 days time. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner hled W.P.No.19472 of 2024 and the sarne was allov"ed on 12.O8.2024 setting aside the proceedings dated Og.O7.2024 passed by respondent No'4 and directed the petitioner to submit explanation to the show cause notice dated 1 1.06.2024 within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order and lurther directed the respondents therein to consider the explanation submitted by the petitioner anC pass appropriate orders in accord'ance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder' o 9 1 1. Record further reveals that pursuant to the said order, the petitioner submitted reply/objections on 25.09.2024 before respondent No.3. pursuarrt to the sarne, respondent No.4 issued proceedings on O7.1O.2O24. It is very much relevant to extract the operative portion of the said proceedings: 'In view of all tl.e above facts and considering your representation, you are informed that these licences were issued to you for possession and use of explosives and not for sale of explosives. you are advised to inform this office the status of FIR.No.136/2O20 at Dahrpally police Station, District Nizamabad and FIR.No.2OB/2024 d,ated, t2.O4.2O24 rn P. S. Ameenpur, District Snagareddy and point wise compliance to this office show cause notices cited above to take further necessary action in the subject matter." Thereafter, respondent No.4 issued another proceedings on 15.01.2025, which reads as under: informed "Your Erre Ietter No.E/HQ/TG/22/773(Er2o2O), dated 04.tO.2024 in complialce to the Honourable High Court direction vide order da+ad 12.O8.2O24 in W.p.No.794Z2 of 2024 10 -\ has already been issued to you communicating the violations of the Explosives Rules, 2OO8 and aft.er consideration of all the facts in the subject matter and your reply dated, 25.09.2024 submitted in this offtce' It is further informed that the reply upload online vide your letter dated 05.12.2O24 is not found satisfactor'r'' Further necessary action will be taken aJl-er Court direction in connection with FIR'No '136 of 2O2O registered at Da-hrpally Police Station and FIR'No'208 of 2024 dated 12.04.2024 registered in Police Statir tn, Ameenpur, District SangareddY."

1.2. The above said two proceedings clearly reveal that as on today, the respondent authorities have not suspended the explosive license issued in favour of the petitioner. Once the proceedings are pending before the competent authority and in the absence of suspension of license or other order, the respondent authorities are not entitled to interfere with the activities of the petitioner especially when the explosive license issued in favour of the petitioner is continuing. 7,, .l o 11

13. Insofar as the submission made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents that the petitioner without availing the remedy of appeal straight ardray approached this Court and filed the writ petition and ttre sarne is not maintainable under 1aw is concerned, this Court is of the considered view that the respondent authorities have neither suspended the license issued in favour of the petitioner nor passed any order. Hence, in the absence of any order the questioh of availing ttre remedy of appeal as provided under Section 6(F) of the Act would not arise.

74. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and for the foregoing reasons, respondent No.4 is directed not 'to interfere with the business of the petitioner. It is made clear that this order will not preclude the respondents from taking a decision on the explanation submitted by the petitioner \ I 1,2 ,\ pursuant to the show cause notice dated 17.06.2024 and a-lso the direction issued by this Court in W.P.No.19472 of 2024, dated 12.08.2024, as per the provisions of the Act and the Rules.

15. With the above direction, the writ petition 1S disposed of. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, sha-1l stand closed. No order as to costs. sD/-P. PADMANABHA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ,/ -/ \L_-.- 'sEcfloN OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To. '",1. Th" Secretary Ministry of Commerce and lndustries Petroleum Explosives Safetv Organisation i6iSOi oepirtment' Union of lndia' New Delhi' 2. Chief Controrrer or eipioiii6t; icij ig'd"*' Kavadiguda' Secunderabad' 5. i;ilI Cli;ia;;trolrei6iEipto'sives, cGo rowers' Kavadisuda' 4. il;;i;C;;iLontroller of Explosives, CGo Towers' Kavadiguda' 5. 6i;tb i;-Si r. Ralasnetar' Advocate 1-o?u.91 6. 5;; d6 io s,i cioiisiuul-"i r<,nldr, 7. Two CD CoPies -Dv 'sollcitor sen of lndia [oPUC] Secunderabad Secunderabad TJ BS -is*tt ,ra-r-.t u / HIGH COURT CC TODAY DATED:20 10212025 ORDER -::\- il.: 1v{ E D I; /it a O 25 ttl ttfit :,i WP.No.4299 of 2025 * /t DIPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS I /z ,/z /z/