Orissa High Court
Mohit Agarwal vs Union Of India And Others on 30 January, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.1995 of 2022
(Through Hybrid mode)
Mohit Agarwal .... Petitioner
Mr. S. Mohapatra, Advocate
-versus-
Union of India and others .... Opposite Parties
Mr. D. K. Sahu, CGC
Mr. A. K. Nanda, AGA
CORAM: JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA
ORDER
30.01.2023
Order No.
05. 1. Mr. Mohapatra, learned advocate appears on behalf of
petitioner and submits, his client applied for explosive substantive
licence. Among the requirements, one was to obtain 'No Objection
Certificate' (NOC) from the district authority. His client duly
applied for issuance of the certificate. The application was rejected,
based on enquiry report dated 24th May, 2001, submitted by the
Superintendent of Police, Balangir. He submits, there was reference
to two police cases, in which his client was named as accused. One
was dropped on Final Report on Mistake of Fact (FRMF) and in the
// 2 //
other, his client stood acquitted. In the circumstances, his client has
moved Court.
2. Mr. Sahu, learned advocate appears on behalf of Union of
India while Mr. Nanda, learned advocate, Additional Government
Advocate, for State.
3. Mr. Nanda relies on the inquiry report to submit, the police
administration was strongly not in favour of granting NOC to
petitioner.
4. Text of inquiry report dated 24th May, 2021, made by the
Superintendent, is reproduced below.
"As desired, the C/A of the petitioner Mohit Agrawal
was duly enquired through the IsIC of Kantabanji PS and
Belpada PS.
IIC Belpada PS has reported that though the petitioner
is not involved in any case of Belpada PS, he is involved in
his family business of Explosives.
On the other hand IIC Kantabanji PS has reported that
the petitioner was involved in Kantabanji PS (1) Case
No.50 Dt.08.03.2016 U/s. 341/323/294/353/506/34 IPC
and (2) Case No.63 Dt. 28.05.16 U/s
341/323/294/324/506/379/34 IPC, out of which case
no.50/16 was returned as FRMF whereas case no.63/16
was charge sheeted vide FF No.63 dt. 30.04.2016.
Under the above fact and circumstances, it is
established that the petitioner Mohit Agrawal is involved
// 3 //
in family business of explosives and is also having
involvement in criminal cases.
Under the above backdrop, this Office is strongly not
in favour of granting NOC in respect of the applicant for
obtaining Explosive license."
(emphasis supplied)
It appears from the report, two reasons were attributed for the police
being strongly against grant of NOC to petitioner. Firstly, petitioner
is involved in family business of explosives and secondly, he having
involvement in criminal cases mentioned in the report.
5. On query from Court Mr. Nanda has not been able to
demonstrate that a person being involved in family business of
explosives is either illegal or antisocial activity. On second ground,
of involvement in criminal cases, two police cases have been
mentioned in the report. First is Kantabani P.S. case no.50 dated 8th
March, 2016 as was returned on FRMF. The second is Kantabanji
P.S. case no.63 dated 28th March, 2016, erroneously mentioned in
the report as dated 28th May, 2016, wherein charge sheet was filed.
Not said in the report were that the case went to trial. There was
judgment dated 3rd September, 2016, whereunder the accused
persons were found 'not guilty', directed to be set at liberty
forthwith on their bail bonds cancelled and sureties, discharged.
// 4 //
Further direction was to enter the case as 'mistake of fact'. What
comes as a surprise is that the police authority in making the report
on 24th May, 2021 referred to this case, in which charge-sheet had
been filed but did not say that trial had resulted in acquittal and
direction to record the case on mistake of fact on said judgment
dated 3rd September, 2016. Court is convinced that the report is
completely unreliable.
6. Opposite party no.2 is directed to forthwith issue NOC to
petitioner. It must be done within two weeks of communication.
7. The writ petition is disposed of.
(Arindam Sinha)
Judge
Prasant
