Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
K V Manikyamba vs Union Of India on 8 September, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.V.S.S. SOMAYAJULU
WRIT APPEAL No.500 OF 2022
(Through physical mode)
Smt. K.V. Manikyamba,
W/o Butchiraju, Occ: Fire works
Business, Aged 45, Proprietrix of
Kolla Butchiraju Fire Works,
D.No.13-14-6, ITI Road, New Gajuwaka,
Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh State.
..Appellant
Versus
Union of India, Rep., by its Secretary,
Ministry of Commerce & Industry,
Petroleum and Explosives Safety
Organization (PESO), New Delhi,
and others.
...Respondents
Counsel for the appellant : Mr. Ravuri Leela Sai Sampath
Counsel for respondent No.1 : Mr. N. Harinath (ASG)
Counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4 : GP for Home.
HCJ & DVSSS,J
ORAL JUDGMENT
Dt:08.09.2022
(per Prashant Kumar Mishra, CJ)
1. This writ appeal is directed against the order dated 29.10.2021
passed by learned single Judge dismissing W.P.No.24720 of 2021 filed
by the appellant questioning the order dated 20.09.2021 passed
by the Commissioner of Police & Additional District Magistrate,
Visakhapatnam, cancelling the No Objection Certificate issued earlier in
favour of the appellant/writ petitioner by the district authority for grant
of Form LE-5 licence under the Explosive Rules, 2008 (for short, 'the
Rules of 2008').
2. Upon finding that the order impugned in the writ petition is
appealable under Rule 121 of the Rules of 2008, the learned single
Judge has dismissed the writ petition reserving liberty to the
appellant/writ petitioner to prefer such appeal, with a further
observation that till the appellant/writ petitioner prefers such appeal
within the time stipulated in the Rule, the impugned order shall stand
suspended.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that Rule 121 of the
Rules of 2008 provides that an appeal shall lie against an order of the
authority refusing to grant or renew a licence or suspending or
revoking a licence or certificate or varying the condition of a licence or
HCJ & DVSSS,J
certificate, but not against an order of cancellation of No Objection
Certificate.
4. Having perused Rule 121 read with Rule 115 of the Rules of
2008, we do not find force in the submission of the learned counsel for
the appellant. A plain reading of Rule 121 of the Rules of 2008 would
demonstrate that an appeal is maintainable against an order of the
authority refusing to grant or renew a licence or suspending or
revoking a licence or certificate, which would mean cancellation of No
Objection Certificate is also appealable under the said provision. Since
the order has been passed by the Commissioner of Police & Additional
District Magistrate, exercising the powers of District Magistrate, the
appeal would lie to the immediate superior to such authority, as
mentioned in clause (c) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 121 of the Rules of
2008.
5. The learned Government Pleader for Home would submit that
the Director General of Police is immediate superior Officer to the
Commissioner of Police & Additional District Magistrate, who exercised
powers of District Magistrate in the present matter.
6. In view of the above, the appellant/writ petitioner is permitted
to prefer appeal before the Director General of Police, within a period
of one week from today and on such appeal being filed, the same shall
be decided by the Director General of Police on its own merits, within
HCJ & DVSSS,J
one month thereafter. Till the appellant/writ petitioner prefers such
appeal, the order impugned in the writ petition shall stand suspended
as observed by the learned single Judge.
7. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is disposed of. No costs. All the
pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.
PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CJ D.V.S.S. SOMAYAJULU, J
Nn
HCJ & DVSSS,J
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.V.S.S. SOMAYAJULU
W.A. No.500 OF 2022
(per Prashant Kumar Mishra, CJ)
Dt:08.09.2022
Nn
