Judgment : 1. This Writ Petition disclosed the mindset of Fireworks Manufacturers in the State of Tamil Nadu, their indifference to the safety aspect and least concern with respect to several accidents, which took the lives of several people de to fire accident, involving fireworks Industry. Brief facts: 2. The Petitioner represents the Tamil Nadu Fireworks and Amorces Manufacturers’ Association. The Members of the Association are engaged in manufacturing fireworks, Chinese crackers, Sparklers, Amorces, Serpent Eggs and colour matches. The manufacturing units are primarily located at Sivakasi, in the District of Virudunagar. The Manufacturers have established their Units by constructing multiple sheds. 3. There were several fire accidents involving the Fireworks Factories at Sivakasi and the neighbouring places in the District of Virudunagar. The Explosives Department found that fireworks manufacturing units were leased out to various individuals by respective licensees, resulting in carrying out multiple firework manufacturing Units within the factory. Such activities posed serious threat to the public safety. The issue was considered at various levels. The Explosives Department, by taking into account the emergent need to regulate the functioning of Factories, issued a Circular dated 23rd November 2012 calling upon the licensees to adhere to certain safety measures. The said Circular is challenged in this Writ Petition primarily on the ground that the Explosives Department has no authority to issue such a Circular, without the statutory supports. 4. The Controller of Explosives, Chennai, filed a Counter Affidavit indicating the background facts relating to the issuance of impugned Circular. The Explosives Department contended that the Petitioner has already filed an Appeal before the Central Government invoking Rule 121 of the Explosives Rules, 2008 and as such, the Writ Petition is not maintainable. According to the Explosives Department, the Licensing Authority is empowered to direct the Licensees to make appropriate modifications to improve safety measures on the strength of Condition No.15 of the License. Accordingly, the Explosives Department justified the impugned Circular. Summary of submissions: 5. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Explosive Department has no authority to issue a Circular of this nature calling upon the Licensees to abide by certain directions. According to the learned Counsel, the Licenses contain certain conditions and only those conditions should be implemented. It is only during the time of renewal, the Statutory Authority could impose conditions and even those conditions should have the sanction of law. According to the learned Counsel, the Licenses contain certain conditions and only those conditions should be implemented. It is only during the time of renewal, the Statutory Authority could impose conditions and even those conditions should have the sanction of law. The learned Counsel further contended that nothing prevented the Explosives Department from taking up the issue with the Government for the purpose of amending the Rules. So long as the Rules do not give any power to the Explosives Department to issue a Circular of this nature, there is no legal sanctity to the Circular. 6. The learned Additional Solicitor General submitted that it was only in larger public interest, Explosives Department issued the impugned Circular. The Manufacturers have been setting up sheds inside the Factory without maintaining safety distance. The Explosives Department, in the light of the earlier incidents, wanted to ensure that there is a safety distance between two sheds. Similarly, other conditions were incorporated in the impugned Circular in the interest of Manufacturers as well as Workers. The learned Additional Solicitor General submitted that the Statutory Authority has got inherent power to impose such special conditions. Analysis: 7. The Petitioner is an Association of Fireworks Manufacturers. In order to manufacture explosive like fireworks, the Manufacturer should obtain statutory clearance and license from the Explosives Department. The Applicant should apply in Form AE and License would be given in the statutory format LE-1. The License would contain the mandatory conditions to be observed by the licensee. 8. The factual matrix indicates that there was a major fire accident at M/s. Om Sakthi Fireworks Industries, resulting in the death of 40 persons and injuries to 51 persons, which includes the local people. Enquiry conducted by the Explosives Department found that Workers in the Factory had worked in an erratic manner in gross violation off safety norms. The fire, which had started in the interior portion of the factory, had gradually spread to a far off location in the southeast where a transit shed was located. 9. Experience is the best teacher. The Explosives Department having found that the Manufacturers constructed multiple sheds without providing smooth pathway, interconnecting the manufacturing sheds, wanted to avoid such major fire accidents in future. 10. The Explosives Department issued several guidelines to be followed by the Manufacturers. 9. Experience is the best teacher. The Explosives Department having found that the Manufacturers constructed multiple sheds without providing smooth pathway, interconnecting the manufacturing sheds, wanted to avoid such major fire accidents in future. 10. The Explosives Department issued several guidelines to be followed by the Manufacturers. Condition No.1 of the Circular dated 23rd November 2012 indicates that there shall be a smooth pathway interconnecting mixing, filling, manufacturing sheds, drying platforms, transit sheds and burning pits, making way for smooth movement of chemicals, intermediates, semi-finished, finished fireworks and wastes in light weight trolley, having rubber lined wheels and for the passage of Workers. The pathway shall be of at least 1.5m wide with smooth surface from the ground level. Condition No.5 appears to be another essential requirement. According to Condition 5, if aerial firework items involving pellets and conventional fireworks items are manufactured in the same factory, the facilities for the manufacture of aerial items shall be separated by a distance of 45m from the rest of the working sheds. 11. The question is whether the Licensing Authority, empowered to issue license with conditions, has got power to impose additional conditions in public interest. 12. Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 provides that the power to issue Orders would include power to add, to amend, vary or rescind such Orders. In the absence of a specific provision regarding addition of conditions, the Statutory Authority would be justified in placing reliance on Section 21 of the General Clauses Act to justify the amendment made to the Order. Such a power is inherent in every authority. 13. The License would be granted only for a period of one year. The licensees should apply for renewal thereafter. The conditions contained in the impugned Circular could very well be included in the License during the time of renewal. When it is made out that it is open to the Licensing Authority to impose certain conditions at the time of renewal of license, the Petitioner cannot be heard to say that such conditions could not be incorporated by way of a Circular during the currency of License. The conditions incorporated in the Circular should be considered as additional conditions appended to the license already issued to the Manufacturers. 14. The two essential conditions, viz. The conditions incorporated in the Circular should be considered as additional conditions appended to the license already issued to the Manufacturers. 14. The two essential conditions, viz. 1 & 5 indicated in the impugned Circular, were made mainly to improve the safety of the Workers of the factory and also the local people. The Manufacturers have no concern with the life of the Workers or the people living in and around the Factories. In their attempt to manufacture fireworks on a large scale during festival season, very often they ignore safety aspects and the norms prescribed by the Statute. The impugned Circular was the result of an extensive study conducted by the Explosives Department. It is a matter of record that over the years, there used to be accidents in the District of Virudhunagar during the course of manufacturing explosive substance. In fact, the impugned Circular was issued not only for the benefit of the Workers and the public but it is also to ensure safety to the Manufacturers. The fact that some of the Manufacturers would be required to relocate the sheds alone cannot be a reason to quash the Circular. None of the contentions incorporated in the Circular can be characterized as arbitrary. The experts have looked into the matter and a conscious decision was taken to impose certain additional conditions to the existing Licenses. Since those conditions were incorporated in public interest and safety of people, the Court would not be justified in quashing the Circular. 15. The Petitioner, or the Manufacturers, appears to have no concern for the lives of poor people. While considering the legality and correctness of the Circular issued by the Explosives Department in larger public interest, the Court is expected to consider the overall view of the matter. The court cannot shut its eyes. The difficulty faced by the Manufacturers to redesign their sheds or their decline in profit are not of much concern to the Court. 16. Employees of the Fireworks Factories are all poor people, residing in and around the District of Virudunagar. They are compelled to work in Fireworks Factories to earn their livelihood. State is not in a position to provide employment to all its citizens. Naturally, people have to look into alternate employment. Interest of the Workers should be protected by the State. Employees of the Fireworks Factories are all poor people, residing in and around the District of Virudunagar. They are compelled to work in Fireworks Factories to earn their livelihood. State is not in a position to provide employment to all its citizens. Naturally, people have to look into alternate employment. Interest of the Workers should be protected by the State. It was only on account of such larger public interest, the Explosives Department has come out with the Circular. This is essentially not an issue between the Manufacturers and the Explosives Department. The issue relates to the life of common man, Workers and the people residing in and around these Factories. In case the Circular is considered in the light of background facts, necessarily, the challenge should fail. The Explosives Department has made it clear that while renewing Licenses, all these conditions would be incorporated. The Department should stick to their undertaking. Even according to the Explosives Department, these conditions were imposed is larger public interest and to ensure safety. Such being the case, while renewing licenses, all these conditions should be incorporated. 17. The jurisdiction under Article 226 is nothing but discretionary. The Equity jurisdiction should be exercised in public interest rather than to safeguard the interest of Manufacturers, who have no concern to the life of helpless poor people. The Circular should be considered in the light of the provisions of Explosives Act and Rules made thereunder. The Circular issued to ensure the safety of Workmen and public cannot be quashed merely because an arguable case was presented by the Petitioner. Therefore I do not find any merit in the contentions taken by the Association. 18. In the upshot, I dismiss the Writ Petition. No costs. Consequently connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.