Bombay High Court
Rajendra S/O Daulatrao Umberkar vs The State Of Maharashtra, Thr. ... on 19 October, 2022
Bench: S.B. Shukre, Anil Laxman Pansare
68-wp6300-22- 1/4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 6300 OF 2022
PETITIONER :- Shri.Rajendra Daulatrao Umberkar, Aged
60 years, Occup.-Business, R/o Radha
Nagar, Amravati.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS :- 1. The State of Maharashtra, through its
Secretary, Department of Home,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2. Commissioner of Police, Amravati City,
Amravati.
3. Joint Commissioner of Police (Adm.),
Office of Police Commissioner, Amravati
City, Amravati.
4. Senior Police Inspector, Police Station
Gadge Nagar, Amravati.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. S.S.Shingane, counsel for the petitioner.
Mr.N.S.Rao, AGP for the respondents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : SUNIL B.SHUKRE &
ANIL L.PANSARE, JJ.
DATE : 19.10.2022.
ORAL J U D G M E N T (Per :Sunil B.Shukre, J.)
Kavita
68-wp6300-22- 2/4
(1) Heard.
(2) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by
consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
(3) Sub-rule (5) of Rule 116 of the Explosives Rules, 2008
requires opportunity of hearing to be granted to the applicant
seeking renewal of his firecrackers licence before passing of an
order of refusal to renew the licence. The impugned order dated
16.09.2022, which has been passed quite belatedly by respondent
No.3 does not show that any opportunity of hearing has been
granted to the petitioner. Of course, it does state the reason of
registration of offences against the petitioner, which finding of
ours is in disagreement with the submission of the learned counsel
for the petitioner that the impugned order is devoid of any
reasons. But, stating of the reasons in the refusal order is not the
only requirement of Rule 116 of the Explosives Rules, 2008. Prior
opportunity of hearing is also the other essential requirement of
Rule 116 of the Explosives Rules, 2008, which has not been
Kavita
68-wp6300-22- 3/4
fulfilled in the present case. In fact respondent No.3, who has
passed the order, has also not applied his mind to this case, as the
order has been passed by him with the approval of respondent No.
2, thereby surrendering his authority to respondent No.2. The
respondent No.3 ought not to have surrendered his authority to
respondent No.2, if at all he had the authority. If respondent No.3
did not have any authority, he had no business passing the
impugned order and he should have let respondent No.2, the
Commissioner of Police, Amravati passed the impugned order.
(4) In the reply filed on behalf of respondent No.3, it is
stated that opportunity of hearing has been granted to the
petitioner, which statement appears to be incorrect for the reason
that the impugned order nowhere shows any prior opportunity of
hearing having been granted to the petitioner. Had it been such a
case, there would have been clear-cut mention of granting of prior
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in the impugned order
itself.
Kavita
68-wp6300-22- 4/4
(5) We, therefore, find that the impugned order is bad-in-
law and it must go. The petition is allowed and the impugned
order is hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded
back to the respondent No.3 for fresh consideration and fresh
decision, in accordance with law and as per requirements of Rule
116 of the Explosives Rules, 2008 read with other applicable
Guidelines, latest by 21.10.2022.
(6) Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No order as
to costs.
(7) Copy of this judgment be furnished to the learned
AGP for compliance.
(ANIL L.PANSARE ,J) (SUNIL B. SHUKRE,J)
Kavita
