M/S. Rajashree Chemtech vs Union Of India
2021 Latest Caselaw 371 Tel

 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

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

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

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

(1992) SUPREME (Pat) 113

(2003) AIR (Mad) 41 AKS,J

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

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

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

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

WRIT PETITION Nos.23355 and 23356 of 2019

10.02.2021 (Msr)