JUDGMENT : The present writ petition has been preferred for quashing the order of cancellation of no objection certificate contained in letter no. 70(i) dated 12.07.2018 issued by the respondent no. 3 – the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi as well as for quashing the order of cancellation of licence for sale of fireworks contained in memo no. E/EC/JH/24/11 E-18137) dated 23.08.2018 issued by the respondent no. 2 – the Deputy Chief Controller of Explosives, Petroleum and Explosives Safety Organization, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Government of India. Further, prayer has been made for restraining the respondents from forcing the petitioner to shift his place of business since he deals with the fire crackers under Class-7, Division-2, Sub-Division-1 and 2 of the Explosives Rules, 2008. 2. The factual background of the case as emerges from the writ petition is that the petitioner is carrying on the business of fireworks at Cart Sarai Road, Ranchi after taking licence under Class-7, Division-2, Sub Division-1 and 2 under the Explosives Rules, 2008 from the respondent no. 2. His licence was also renewed from time to time. However, vide order dated 26.04.2017, the respondent no. 4 – the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Ranchi issued a general order in exercise of power conferred under Section 144 Cr.P.C to all the firework dealers to shift their place of business from Upper Bazar Area (Ranchi) to another place. The petitioner replied on 05.05.2017 stating that his shop is situated at a place which is accessible to the fire extinguisher equipment. Subsequently, vide letter dated 14.10.2017, a joint inspection team was constituted and on the basis of the report, the respondent no. 3 vide letter dated 29.03.2018 directed the respondent no. 4 to hold a meeting with the licensees of the fireworks. Accordingly, the meeting was held on 07.04.2018 and it was resolved that the concerned licensees shall shift their shops till 07.05.2018. In the said meeting, it was also resolved to recommend for cancellation of no objection certificates issued in favour of the concerned licensees. Thereafter, the respondent no. 3 vide letter no. 70(i) dated 12.07.2018, cancelled the no objection certificate issued to the petitioner. Subsequently, the respondent no. 2 vide order dated 23.08.2018 also cancelled the fireworks licence of the petitioner. 3. Thereafter, the respondent no. 3 vide letter no. 70(i) dated 12.07.2018, cancelled the no objection certificate issued to the petitioner. Subsequently, the respondent no. 2 vide order dated 23.08.2018 also cancelled the fireworks licence of the petitioner. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is carrying on the business of fireworks after obtaining licence and in conformity with the provisions of the Explosive Act, 1884 and the Explosives Rules, 2008 framed thereunder. It is also submitted that the respondent authorities have arbitrarily directed the petitioner to shift his shops/godowns from the present place of business to some other place. The impugned orders of cancellation of no objection certificate and the licence have been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice since no opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner before passing such orders. It is also submitted that the petitioners have fitted all necessary fire extinguishing systems as directed by the Fire Department. The place of business of the petitioner is situated by the side of 30 ft. wide road which is easily accessible to all types of vehicles. Even tankers containing water for supply in different parts of the city used by the Ranchi Municipal Corporation are also parked in the huge area of land just beside the shop of the petitioner. It is further submitted that the Explosives Rules, 2008 does not prescribe the area for which the licence is to be granted, rather it prescribes for safety measures to be undertaken by the licensee which the petitioner had duly been following. It is further submitted that the Explosive Act, 1884 provides for delegation of power and for any decision in the context of Section 5, 6, 6A, 14 and 17 of the Act, 1884, the delegation has to be made by the Central Government. Hence, the respondent no. 4 had no power or authority vested under law to direct for closure of the shop of the petitioner and others who had been issued licences by the Central Government. It is also submitted that State authorities are adamant to shift the licensed premises of the petitioner from Upper Bazar, Ranchi though there is no violation of the rules. Moreover, there is no threat to the public at large, if the business of fire crackers is regulated in accordance with law. It is also submitted that State authorities are adamant to shift the licensed premises of the petitioner from Upper Bazar, Ranchi though there is no violation of the rules. Moreover, there is no threat to the public at large, if the business of fire crackers is regulated in accordance with law. Moreover, the Sub Division-1 of Division-2 of Class-7 of the Explosives Rules, 2008 is in relation to low hazardous fireworks which are non-explosive/non-violent crackers. It is also submitted that there can be no justification in cancelling the licence of the petitioner particularly when neither any ground nor any measure in relation to exercise of power under Section 6(E) of the Explosive Act, 1884 is available with the respondents. Moreover, there was no cause of action for invoking the power under rule 118 of the Explosives Rules, 2008. It is also submitted that there can be no justification in withdrawing the NOC and cancelling the licence of the petitioner particularly when the said business was being run by the petitioner in accordance with law which was thoroughly being monitored by the experts of Petroleum and Explosives Safety Organization. The action of the respondent authorities in withdrawing the No Objection Certificate in relation to the licence issued by the Central Government for sale of Chinese Crackers and Sparklers under Class-7, Division-2, Sub Division-1 is arbitrary, illegal and unjustified. Even if the Explosive Act, 1884 provides for delegation of power which is vested with the Central Government, the action of the respondent no. 3 in entrusting and delegating the power to the respondent no. 4 in relation to the licence holders is arbitrary, illegal and unsustainable in the eyes of law. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. The petitioner has challenged the order of cancellation of no objection certificate passed by the respondent no. 3 and the cancellation of the petitioner’s licence issued for dealing with fire crackers passed by the respondent no. 2. 5. Before coming to the merit of the case, it would be appropriate to go through the judgment of this Court passed in “Geeta Devi & Anr. Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors.” [W.P. (C) No. 1069 of 2018] along with analogous cases, wherein some firework dealers had challenged the order of the respondent no. 2. 5. Before coming to the merit of the case, it would be appropriate to go through the judgment of this Court passed in “Geeta Devi & Anr. Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors.” [W.P. (C) No. 1069 of 2018] along with analogous cases, wherein some firework dealers had challenged the order of the respondent no. 4 directing them to shift their places of business from Upper Bazar area to any other place. The said writ petitions were decided by the common judgment dated 11.05.2018, directing the petitioners to shift their business within two months to such places where there is accessibility of fire extinguisher vehicle. The relevant paragraphs of the said judgment are quoted hereinbelow for the ready reference: “7. The respondents have given much stress to the argument that the petitioners are carrying on business in violation of Rule 83 of Rules, 2008 and as such before coming to the merit of the case, it would be appropriate to quote said rule, which reads as under: “83. Explosives permitted for possession and sale from shop.— (1) No explosives, other than fireworks, gun powder, small arm nitro compound and safety fuse, permitted in licence shall be stored in a shop for possession and sale. (2) Construction of shop.—The shop shall be constructed of a brick, stone or concrete and the shop shall be closed and secured so as to prevent unauthorized person from having access thereto. (3) The premises shall have storage area not less than nine square meters and not more than twenty five square meters. (4) The shop shall — (a) be located on the ground floor of a building completely separated from other parts of the building by substantial walls having independent entrance and emergency exit from open air and having doors opening outwards, if applicable; (b) not be situated in the sub-level or basement or mezzanine floor; (c) not be situated under the upper floor used for the purpose of dwelling; (d) not be situated under or nearby any staircase or lift; (e) be accessible for fire-fighting; and (f) have no electrical apparatus or battery or oil lamp or similar equipment’s capable of producing spark or ignition and all electrical wiring in the shop be fixed and effectively sealed or conducted or mechanically protected; the main switch or circuit breaker be provided at the immediate accessible position outside the premises.” 8. On perusal of the record it appears that although several irregularities have been alleged against the petitioners while carrying on the firework business, the main violation is with respect to Rule 83(4)(e) of the Rules, 2008 which provides that the shop shall be accessible for fire-fighting. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondents is that the shops of the petitioners are situated in densely populated area having very narrow road. Thus, the shops are not accessible for fire-fighting measures. Pursuant to the order of the Deputy Commissioner (respondent no.2), a physical inspection was carried out at the petitioners’ places of business by the Additional In-charge State Fire Service Officer, who reported that the shops of the petitioners are situated in a very densely populated area. In the said report, it has been mentioned that in the event of any mishappening, a fire extinguisher vehicle may take an hour to reach the place of occurrence. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners has, however, submitted that the office of the Fire Department is situated just near the petitioners’ places of business and as per Google map, it would take only 5-7 minutes to reach there. 9. In my view, the time shown by the Google map appears to be only an ideal one during normal traffic conditions in the said area. As per the stand of the respondents, the fire extinguisher vehicle would have to pass through heavily congested road to reach the shops of the petitioners, particularly during day time due to chocked traffic condition, thus the accessibility of fire extinguisher vehicle is very difficult. According to the petitioners, the road near their shops are wide i.e. upto 30 ft., however, that may not ensure easy accessibility of fire extinguisher vehicle considering the fact that the same are situated in a densely populated area. What is relevant here is that in case of any mishappening, whether the fire extinguisher vehicle would reach the said place promptly penetrating the chocked traffic. What is relevant here is that in case of any mishappening, whether the fire extinguisher vehicle would reach the said place promptly penetrating the chocked traffic. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners has submitted that although they have removed most of the irregularities, the direction of the -6- respondents to shift their places of business is arbitrary, as the direction for shifting the place of business has been passed in violation of clause (e) of Section 83(4) of Rules, 2008 and thus the removal of other irregularities may not make any major difference in the case of the petitioners. 11. Moreover, in the present case the petitioners have been given sufficient opportunity to explain their cases and only thereafter the impugned direction has been issued. The legislature in its wisdom enacted Explosive Act, 1894 in order to regulate the manufacture, possession, use, sale, transport and importation of explosives and in order to carry out the object and purpose of the Act, 1894, Rules have been framed from time to time in exercise of the powers conferred under the Act. Presently, the Rules, 2008 is in vogue. Rule 102 of Rules, 2008 provides that any person who desires to obtain a licence for manufacture, possession for sale or use of explosives shall obtain no objection certificate from the District Magistrate or Director General of Mines Safety, as the case may be, before commencing construction of the premises. Further, Rule 103 provides the procedure to be observed for issuance of no objection certificate and for grant of licence. After getting application, the District Magistrate shall make verification of the antecedents of the applicant, lawful possession of the site, genuineness of the purpose, interest of public and any other verifications or enquiries as may be specifically required by the licensing authority to be carried out, if any, and on any other matter as deemed necessary. For verification of the interest of public, the District Magistrate shall forthwith cause a notice to be published calling upon the public to submit objections and only after hearing the objections, shall take any decision. Further Rule 115 provides that any ‘no objection certificate’ granted under Rule 103 may be cancelled by the authority issuing the same or the authority superior to it, if the authority is satisfied that the cancellation of no objection certificate is absolutely necessary for public peace and safety. Further Rule 115 provides that any ‘no objection certificate’ granted under Rule 103 may be cancelled by the authority issuing the same or the authority superior to it, if the authority is satisfied that the cancellation of no objection certificate is absolutely necessary for public peace and safety. It is further provided that before cancellation of the no objection certificate the licensee shall be given reasonable opportunity of being heard. Thus, on consideration of the aforesaid provisions of Rules 2008, it would emerge that the licensee is not entitled to continue with the no objection certificate if the public peace and safety is put in question. 12. In order to ensure public peace and safety, apart from other conditions, clause (e) of Rule 83(4) specifically provides that the place of business of any fireworks must be accessible for fire-fighting. Thus, in any violation thereof, the authority is required to take appropriate action against the licensee and the same cannot be challenged merely on the ground that the licence and no objection certificate have been granted to the licensee after following due procedure. Ranchi is fast developing city resulting in immense growth in population and business activities throughout the city particularly ‘Upper Bazar’ area which is also known as business hub of Ranchi. Thus, the area which may not be so densely populated earlier has now become thickly populated which may have drawn the attention of the administrative authorities to take suitable steps so as to ensure public safety and peace. Though, the said decision may cause hardship to the businessmen (the petitioners herein), yet for the safety of the public at large, hard measures are required to be taken for which the authorities are otherwise empowered by the Rule itself. However, the words “out of densely populated area” mentioned in the letter dated 10.01.2018 are too vague to be followed by the petitioners. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has tried to distinguish the present case from the aforesaid cases and has submitted that the petitioner is primarily dealing in Chinese Crackers and Sparklers specified under Class-7, Division-2, Sub-Division-1 of the Explosives Rules, 2008 which are non-explosive/non-violent crackers. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has tried to distinguish the present case from the aforesaid cases and has submitted that the petitioner is primarily dealing in Chinese Crackers and Sparklers specified under Class-7, Division-2, Sub-Division-1 of the Explosives Rules, 2008 which are non-explosive/non-violent crackers. However, on perusal of the licence of the petitioner, it appears that he had taken licence both for Chinese Crackers and/or Sparklers (500 kg.) coming under Class 7, Division 2, Sub Division 1 and also for Fireworks (100 kg) coming under Class 7, Division 2, Sub Division 2. Class 7 of the Explosives Rules, 2008 is quoted as under: Class 7-Fireworks Class (1) Fireworks Class has four divisions, namely, Division 1, Division 2, Division 3, and Division 4. (2) Division 1 comprises fireworks composition that is to say, any chemical compound or mechanically mixed preparation of an explosive or inflammable nature, which is used for the purpose of making manufactured firework, and is not an explosive of classes 1,2,3,4,5 & 6, any star and any coloured fire composition: Provided that a substantially constructed hermetically closed metal case, containing not more than 500 grammes of coloured fire composition of such a nature, as not to be liable to spontaneous ignition shall be deemed to be "a manufactured firework" and not a "firework composition". (3) Division 2 fireworks comprises manufactured fireworks i.e. to say any explosive of class 1,2,3,4 or 6 and any fireworks composition when such explosive or composition is enclosed in any case or contrivance or other articles specially adapted, for the production of pyrotechnic effect for pyrotechnic signal or sound signals. (4) Division 2 fireworks comprises 3 sub-divisions, namely, Sub-division 1, Sub-division 2 and Sub-division 3. (5) Sub-division 1 of Division 2 fireworks comprises low hazard fireworks which, in the opinion of Chief Controller are relatively innocuous in themselves and are not liable to explode violently or all at once e.g. sparklers [Chinese crackers, serpents, etc.] (6) Sub-division 2 of Division 2 of fireworks comprises high hazard fireworks which, in the opinion of Chief Controller, present a special hazard to a person e.g. rockets, shells, maroons, wheels, barrages, fountains, illumination pieces, distress signals, pyrotechnic devices etc. (7) Sub-division 3 of Division 2 fireworks comprises such fireworks, which are assembled at site purely for the purpose of display. (7) Sub-division 3 of Division 2 fireworks comprises such fireworks, which are assembled at site purely for the purpose of display. (8) Division 3 comprises any explosive contrivance required for the manufacture of manufactured fireworks e.g. quick match fuse, micro cord fuse etc. (9) Division 4 comprises manufactured fireworks for use of Armed Forces of the Union. 7. From the aforesaid provision, it would appear that Chinese crackers and sparklers are low hazard fireworks which, in the opinion of Chief Controller, are relatively innocuous in themselves and are not liable to explode violently or all at once. 8. Even if it is assumed that the petitioner is primarily dealing in the fireworks under Class 7, Sub Division 1 of Division 2, the same is also hazardous fireworks, may be low hazardous. The requirement in rule 83 of Rules, 2008 for possession and sale of fireworks enumerated is an independent provision which is essentially required to be followed by all the firework dealers irrespective of the categorization made in Class 7 of the Explosives Rules, 2008. Though the licence for dealing with fireworks is granted by the Chief Controller of Explosives, which is the Central Government authority, yet in the Rules, 2008, it has specifically been provided that for getting licence, the dealer must require No Objection Certificate granted by the District Magistrate after following the procedure laid down in the Rules, 2008 with the power vested to the District Magistrate to cancel it, if the same is necessary for public peace and safety. As per the provisions of the Rules, 2008, it is required that the shop must have fire-fighting accessibility and the said requirement is essential for securing the public peace and safety. The power conferred to the District Magistrate under Rules, 2008 is independent of the power of the licensing authority. Thus, I am of the considered view that even after the grant of no objection certificate to the licensees, the District Magistrate may cancel the same to ensure public peace and safety. 9. The other argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that before passing the order of cancellation of NOC and the licence, no opportunity of hearing was given to him by the respective authorities and thus, the impugned orders suffer from violation of the principles of natural justice. 9. The other argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that before passing the order of cancellation of NOC and the licence, no opportunity of hearing was given to him by the respective authorities and thus, the impugned orders suffer from violation of the principles of natural justice. To appreciate the said contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, I have gone through the record of the case. It appears that a meeting was convened on 07.04.2018 by the respondent no. 4 on the direction of the respondent no. 3 with the dealers of firework carrying on their business in Upper Bazar, Ranchi which was also attended by the petitioner. In the said meeting, the matter was discussed to take appropriate measures for preventing any mis-happening in future due to presence of firework shops in a densely populated area of Ranchi i.e., Upper Bazar. Finally, after the discussion with the firework dealers, it was resolved that all the firework shops situated in the Upper Bazar will be shifted to some other places. The decision taken by the district authorities was made equally applicable to all the firework dealers of Upper Bazar since the requirement under Section 83(e) of Rules, 2008 was not being fulfilled by the dealers of the said area. Under such situation, it was not necessary to serve independent show cause notices to individual firework dealers for the proposed action. Moreover, it is not a case of violation of any terms and conditions of the licence, rather the District Administration has taken preventive measures to check any mis-happening by the presence of firework shops in the densely populated “Upper Bazar” area of Ranchi city, which is not accessible to fire extinguisher vehicle. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case “Municipal Committee, Hoshiarpur Vs. Punjab SEB & Ors.”, reported in (2010) 13 SCC 216 , has held that there may be cases where on admitted and undisputed facts, only one conclusion is possible. In such an eventuality, the application of the principles of natural justice would be a futile exercise and an empty formality. 10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned orders so as to make any interference under writ jurisdiction of this Court. 11. The present writ petition is accordingly dismissed.