A. P. RAVANI, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner is an association of businessmen selling fire works. The pe- titioner challenges the legality and vali- dity of the order Annexure-H dated September 19/23 1987 passed by the District Magistrate Palanpur. By this order the petitioners application for re- renewal of licence for selling fire crack- ers in the bazar area has been rejected on the ground that the place in respect of which licence is applied for is situa- ted in a thickly populated locality; hence if the licence is granted in respect of those premises it would damage the public interest. It is also stated that the premises in question are not in ac- cordance with the provisions of Rule 135 of the Explosives Rules 1983 ( 2 ) THE petition is not maintainable because against the impugned order an appeal is provided for under the rele- vant provisions of the Indian Explo- sives Act 1884 and the Rules. But the learned counsel for the petitioner insis- ted that the petition be heard by this Court as the petitioners do not know which is the appellate authority and therefore there would not be any alter native efficacious remedy. This ground cannot be accepted as the petitioners could have and should have enquired from the District Magistrate or from other relevant Government office as to where the appeal lies. Therefore on the ground that there is alternative efficacious remedy the petition is re- quired to be rejected. However other contentions raised by the petitioner may also be examined. ( 3 ) WHEN the application for renewal of the licence has been rejected by the respondent-District Magistrate it should also be borne in mind that alternative place (i. e. in school compound) has been offered where the business of selling fire crackers may be carried on by members of the petitioner-association. In view of this alternative arrangement at the most the members of the petitioner asso- ciation may suffer some hardship and inconvenience but they would not be deprived of an opportunity to carry on the business in fire crackers. In view of this alternative arrangement at the most the members of the petitioner asso- ciation may suffer some hardship and inconvenience but they would not be deprived of an opportunity to carry on the business in fire crackers. When safety of the people at large and pub- lic property is at stake and if the safety measures require that some hardship be undergone by those who want to deal in dangerous substances it can never be said that the decision of the respondent- authority is in any way arbitrary or un- reasonable. ( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the peti- tioner submitted that neither the provi- sions of the Act nor the rules provide that such licence cannot be given in res- pect of the premises which are situated ill a thickly populated locality. There- fore this is an irrelevant and extrane- ous ground. The contention cannot be accepted. Even if it is assumed that what petitioners counsel states is cor- rect that there is no specific provision mentioning the ground regarding situa- tion of the premises in a thickly po- pulated locality the ground is certainly relevant to the very object of the sta- tute. The Indian Explosives Act 1884 and the Explosives Rules 1983 are meant for the safety of the public pro- perty and the people. Therefore the reason mentioned in the order is cer- tainly relevant one. ( 5 ) THE contention raised by the peti- tioner that in other cities like Ahmeda- bad Baroda and Surat such licences are given and therefore this ground is extraneous and irrelevant cannot be ac- cepted. What safety measures are in- sisted by the licensing authority in the cities like Ahmedabad Baroda and Surat is not on record. Assuming for a mo- ment that without taking any safety measures licence is issued by another licencing authority in Ahmedabad Baroda and Surat that cannot be a ground to say that the reason mentioned in the impugned order by the District Magistrate Palanpur-respondent No. 1 herein is irrelevant and extraneous. ( 6 ) THE learned counsel for the peti- tioner submitted that it is not mention- ed in the order that which particular provision of Rule 135 is not complied with by the petitioner and therefore the second ground is vague. ( 6 ) THE learned counsel for the peti- tioner submitted that it is not mention- ed in the order that which particular provision of Rule 135 is not complied with by the petitioner and therefore the second ground is vague. It is not shown by the petitioner that the provisions of Rule 135 are complied with by them and that it was not open to the res- pondent-authority to rely upon this ground. The petitioner did not say that: (1) all explosives on the premises shall be kept in a brick stone or concrete building which is closed and secured; (2) such part will be a place where no outside person will have access; (3) the premises shall have a floor area of minimum nine square metres; (4) the premises have independent entrance and exit; (5) the premises are situated in a building used for other purpose also or not; that it is not situated under a staircase and that the provisions of Rule 135 (A) are complied with; and (6) the premises are situated at ground level When the petitioner itself does not show in the petition that the premises are in accordance with Rule 135 non- mention of specific dated with regard to particular ingredient of Rule 135 does not vitiate the order. ( 7 ) THE learned counsel for the peti- tioner submitted that the order is mala fide inasmuch as in the year 1984 also the respondent authority had refused to grant licence and thereafter pursuant to the order passed by the High Court licence was granted. It is submitted that the order reproduced in para 3 of the petition was passed by me in spe- cial civil application No. 5075 of 1984. It may be so. If I have passed that order I feel that I have committed an error. It is for the District Magistrate and the authority concerned to provide for the safety of the people and to en- sure as to whether dangerous things should be allowed to be sold in a thick- ly populated locality or not. For deter- mining such question in the opinion of the legislature the best authority would be the officer concerned who is coner- red with the power to determine such questions. For deter- mining such question in the opinion of the legislature the best authority would be the officer concerned who is coner- red with the power to determine such questions. The High Court would be justified in interfering with the decision of such officer only if it is shown that the officer concerned has aced arbitra- rily and/or with mala fide. If the order referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner has been passed by me I do feel that I have committed a mistake. ( 8 ) THE learned counsel for the peti- tioner submitted that even in the year 1985 the respondent authority had re- fused the licence. It was insisted that security for damages should be furnished by the petitioner. But this High Court set aside the condition with referred to furnishing of security for damages. Thereafter in the year 1986 the licence was refused on account of the com- munal disharmony in the city. On earlier occasions what happened is not very much material because it is not the same individual who passed the dif- fferent orders at different times the conceded that every time the orders were issued by different officers. This fact on the contrary negatives the con- tention of mala fides. How is it that all the times different officers react in the same manner and are refusing to grant licence? ( 9 ) FROM what is stated hereinabove I feel that when I passed order in special civil application No. 5075 of 1984 I did commit a mistake. Even if fire exting- uishers are kept ready in the vicinity of the places where the fire crackers are sold it would not be possible to ex- tinguish the fire before the fire takes its toll destructs property and takes some lives. 8 The order paned by the au- thority in the year 1985 are not on re- cord. But simply because one of the conditions from that order was removed by this High Court it cannot be said that this type of order has been passed with mala fides. learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the larry-walas are permitted to do the bu- siness in bazar area. If that be so the District Magistrate should have taken proper care to ensure that larry-walas keep their larry at safe places. learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the larry-walas are permitted to do the bu- siness in bazar area. If that be so the District Magistrate should have taken proper care to ensure that larry-walas keep their larry at safe places. How- ever even of the larry-walas are not restricted to do business in thickly po- pulated locality the petitioners do not get any right to do business at a place where it is dangerous to allow such busi- ness to be carried on. Further there is nothing to show that licence has been given to larry-walas. ( 10 ) FOR the aforesaid reasons the pe- tition is rejected. .