THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
WRIT PETITION Nos.23355 and 23356 of 2019
COMMON ORDER:
Since the issue involved in both these writ petitions is
one and the same, they are heard together and being
disposed of by way of this common order.
W.P.No.23355 of 2019 is filed seeking the following
relief:
".... to issue a writ, order or direction, more
particularly, one in the nature of writ of Mandamus
declaring the action of 2nd respondent in issuing Order
No.A/HQ/TG/P3/56(A-1344), dated 15.10.2019 and Order No.A/HQ/TG/P1/3(A-850), dated 15.10.2019 to petitioner for suspension of his licenses i.e. license for sale and license to possess for sale of Ammonium Nitrate, respectively, as illegal, arbitrary, violative of the principals of natural justice and violative of the provisions of the Explosives Act, 1884 and provisions of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, consequently, set aside the same and pass such other order or orders ......"
W.P.No.23356 of 2019 is filed seeking the following relief:
".... to issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly, one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of 1st respondent in issuing Order No.A/HQ/TG/P3/55(A-1343), dated 15.10.2019 to petitioner for suspension of his license i.e. license for storage of Ammonium Nitrate, respectively, as illegal, AKS,J 2 W.P.Nos.23355 and 23356 of 2019 arbitrary, violative of the principals of natural justice and violative of the provisions of the Explosives Act, 1884 and provisions of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, consequently, set aside the same and pass such other order or orders ......"
Heard Sri B. Chandrasen Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners in both the writ petitions; Sri B. Jithender, learned Standing Counsel for the Central Government appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3; learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos.4 and 5; and Sri Ch. Ramesh Babu, learned counsel for respondent No.6.
While W.P.No.23355 of 2019 is filed declaring the action of respondent No.2 in issuing Order No.A/HQ/TG/P3/56(A- 1344), dated 15.10.2019 and Order No.A/HQ/TG/P1/3(A-
850), dated 15.10.2019, suspending the licenses of the petitioners i.e. license for sale and license to possess for sale of Ammonium Nitrate, respectively, as illegal, arbitrary; W.P.No.23356 of 2019 is filed declaring the action of respondent No.1 in issuing Order No.A/HQ/TG/P3/55(A- 1343), dated 15.10.2019 suspending the licence of the petitioners for storage of Ammonium Nitrate.
It has been contended by the petitioners that petitioner No.1 is a Sole Proprietorship Firm started in the year 2011 by petitioner No.2 engaged in the business of storage and sale of Ammonium Nitrate and also for sale of Sodium Nitrate, respectively. The said licenses were granted on 13.08.2014 AKS,J 3 W.P.Nos.23355 and 23356 of 2019 and the same is valid upto 31.03.2024. The petitioners contend that they were falsely implicated in Crime No.420/2019, dated 26.08.2019 on the file of SHO, Shamshabad Police Station, Ranga Reddy District, alleging that the petitioners have been illegally transporting and selling Ammonium Nitrate through one Shaik Habeeb Basa, Driver of DCM vehicle bearing No.AP03 TC 9707 and the same was intercepted at Shamshabad Outer Ring Road and on interception, the Driver of the said vehicle informed that he has been transporting the same at the instance of petitioner No.1 - Firm. Basing on the same, the respondents have issued a Show Cause Notice dated 13.09.2019 as to why the licenses of the petitioner No.1 should not be cancelled, to which petitioner No.2 had submitted a detailed explanation dated 03.10.2019 denying allegations made in the Show Cause Notice dated 13.09.2019 and inspite of the same, the respondents have passed impugned orders, both dated 15.10.2019, cancelling the licenses of the petitioners for storage and sale of Ammonium Nitrate and also for sale of Sodium Nitrate, respectively. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have filed the present writ petitions.
Learned counsel for the petitioners had contended that the respondents have not recorded the contentions raised by the petitioners in their explanation dated 03.10.2019 submitted to the Show Cause Notice dated 13.09.2019 and passed mischievous orders without assigning any cogent AKS,J 4 W.P.Nos.23355 and 23356 of 2019 reasons for cancelling the licenses of the petitioners. He would further contend that Ammonium Nitrate is not an explosive material and in support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioners had relied on the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in SHEIK RASOOL MOHAMMED AND SONS Vs. UNION OF INDIA1 and also the judgment of Madras High Court in KALEESWARI METAL POWDER Vs. COMMISSIONER, PANCHAYAT UNION, SIVAKASI2 and contended that the respondents ought to have taken into consideration the explanation dated 03.10.2019 submitted by the petitioners before passing the impugned orders both dated 15.10.2019 cancelling the licenses of the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners, therefore, contends that appropriate orders be passed in the writ petitions setting aside the impugned orders both dated 15.10.2019 and the matter be remanded to the respondent authorities to enable them to consider the case of the petitioners by taking into consideration the explanation dated 03.10.2019 submitted by them and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
Sri B. Jithender, learned Standing Counsel for the Central Government appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 had contended that the impugned orders dated 15.10.2019 passed by the respondents are appealable orders and without exhausting the said alternative remedy of appeal, the 1 (1992) SUPREME (Pat) 113 2 (2003) AIR (Mad) 41 AKS,J 5 W.P.Nos.23355 and 23356 of 2019 petitioners have straight away approached this Court and filed the present writ petitions. He further contended that the respondents have considered the explanation dated 03.10.2019 submitted by the petitioners and as it was found not satisfactory, the respondents have passed impugned orders dated 15.10.2019 cancelling the licenses of the petitioners. He, therefore, contends that there are no merits in the writ petitions and the same are liable to be dismissed.
Sri Ch. Ramesh Babu, learned counsel for respondent No.6 had contended that Ammonium Nitrate, which is the subject matter of these writ petitions, is an explosive material and the same is manufactured by respondent No.6 and for the purpose of selling the same only, respondent No.6 has authorized the petitioners. Therefore, learned counsel for respondent No.6 had contended that the respondents be directed to handover the seized stock of Ammonium Nitrate to respondent No.6 or sell the same by way of e-auction. Learned counsel for respondent No.6 also relied upon a letter dated 09.10.2020 said to have been addressed by the Deputy Chief Controller of Explosives, Hyderabad, to the Assistant Solicitor General of India, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad, and contended that the National Disaster Management Authority, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, has informed to all the Chief Secretaries of the States vide letter dated 07.08.2020 regarding storage of hazardous material for long time and got entangled with legal AKS,J 6 W.P.Nos.23355 and 23356 of 2019 dispute regarding disposal, e-auction etc. and appropriate prayer to be made before concerned Legal Fora a for necessary interim approval for disposal of the material. He contends that as official respondents are not in a position to dispose of Ammonium Nitrate, let official respondents be directed to handover the seized stock to respondent No.6 or sell the stocks of Ammonium Nitrate through e-auction, as the storage of Ammonium Nitrate for a longer period may be hazardous to the general public.
Learned counsel for the petitioners had contended that respondent No.6 also be permitted to submit its objections to the respondent authorities and the respondent authorities be directed to consider the same and pass appropriate orders by duly taking into account the explanation dated 03.10.2019 submitted by the petitioner to the Show Cause Notice dated 13.09.2019.
This Court, having considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the respective parties, is of the considered view that both these writ petitions can be disposed of setting aside the impugned orders, both dated 15.10.2019, cancelling the licenses of the petitioners and the matter be remanded to respondent No.2 for consideration of the case, afresh, by duly taking into account explanation dated 03.10.2019 submitted by the petitioners and respondent No.6 is also at liberty to file its objections and request for return of AKS,J 7 W.P.Nos.23355 and 23356 of 2019 the seized stock of Ammonium Nitrate within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and upon such objections being filed by respondent No.6, the petitioners are also permitted to submit their explanation within two weeks thereafter and upon receiving the same, respondent No.2 shall consider the explanation being submitted by the petitioners as well as objections being filed by respondent No.6 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of four weeks thereafter.
With the above observations, both these writ petitions are allowed. No order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in both these writ petitions shall stand closed.
________________________________ ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J 10.02.2021.
Msr AKS,J 8 W.P.Nos.23355 and 23356 of 2019 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI WRIT PETITION Nos.23355 and 23356 of 2019 10.02.2021 (Msr)