JUDGMENT : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged order dated 19.03.2016 passed by the respondent no.3 – Divisional Commissioner, Amravati Division, whereby appeal filed by the respondent no.4 was allowed and order dated 07.04.2015 passed by the respondent no.1 granting explosives licence to the petitioner under the provisions of the Explosives Act, 1884, was cancelled. 3. Notice was issued in this writ petition on 21.04.2016 for final disposal of the writ petition at the admission stage. The office note shows that all the respondents, including respondent no.4 i.e. the appellant before the respondent no.3, were served for final disposal. While Mr. A.R. Chutke, learned AGP, has appeared on behalf of respondent Nos. 1,2,3,5 and 6 and a request is made for time to file reply, none has appeared on behalf of the contesting respondent no.4. 4. Since the principal contention raised on behalf of the petitioner in the present petition concerns the very maintainability of the appeal filed by the respondent no.4 before the respondent no.3, the prayer for time sought by learned AGP is rejected. 5. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that perusal of the appeal filed by the respondent no.4 would show that it was purportedly filed under Section 6-F of the Explosives Act, 1884, read with Rule 121 of the Rules framed thereunder. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that an appeal under the said provision of the Act and the aforesaid Rules, can be filed only by a person who is aggrieved by an order of the licensing authority refusing to grant a licence or varying the conditions of a licence or suspending or revoking a licence. It is contended that the said provision and rule does not give any right to any third person to challenge grant of licence to another. On this ground, it is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the appeal itself filed before the respondent no.3 was not maintainable, thereby rendering the impugned order bad in law as being without jurisdiction. 6. As noted above, despite service the contesting respondent no.4 has chosen not to appear before this Court. The learned AGP has appeared on behalf of the other respondents. 7. Heard counsel for the parties. 8. 6. As noted above, despite service the contesting respondent no.4 has chosen not to appear before this Court. The learned AGP has appeared on behalf of the other respondents. 7. Heard counsel for the parties. 8. Section 6-F of the Explosives Act, 1884 reads as follows:- “6-F. Appeals.— (1) Any person aggrieved by an order of the licensing authority refusing to grant a licence or varying the conditions of a licence or by an order of the licensing authority suspending or revoking a licence may prefer an appeal against that order to such authority (hereinafter referred to as the appellate authority) and within such period as may be prescribed: Provided that no appeal shall lie against an order made by, or under the direction of the Central Government. (2) No appeal shall be admitted if it is preferred after the expiry of the period prescribed therefor: Provided that an appeal may be admitted after the expiry of the period prescribed therefor if the appellant satisfies the appellate authority that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within that period. (3) The period prescribed for an appeal shall be computed in accordance with the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), with respect to the computation of periods of limitation thereunder. (4) Every appeal under this section shall be made by a petition in writing and shall be accompanied by a brief statement of the reasons for the order appealed against where such statement has been furnished to the appellant and by such fee as may be prescribed. (5) In disposing of an appeal the appellate authority shall follow such procedure as may be prescribed: Provided that no appeal shall be disposed of unless the appellant has been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. (6) The order appealed against shall, unless the appellate authority conditionally or unconditionally directs otherwise, be in force pending the disposal of the appeal against such order. (7) Every order of the appellate authority confirming, modifying or reversing the order appealed against shall be final.]” Rule 121 of the Rules framed under the said Act, reads as follows:- “121. (6) The order appealed against shall, unless the appellate authority conditionally or unconditionally directs otherwise, be in force pending the disposal of the appeal against such order. (7) Every order of the appellate authority confirming, modifying or reversing the order appealed against shall be final.]” Rule 121 of the Rules framed under the said Act, reads as follows:- “121. Provision for appeal- (1) An appeal against an order of the authority refusing to grant or renew a licence or suspending or revoking a licence or certificate or varying the condition of a licence or certificate shall lie, if the order is passed by the- (a) Chief Controller, - to the Central Government; (b) Controller,- to the Chief Controller; (c) District Magistrate,- to the immediate superior to such authority. (2) Every appeal referred to in sub-rule (1) shall be preferred in accordance with the provisions of the Act and shall be presented within sixty days of the date of the communication of such order. (3) Every appeal shall be accompanied by fees specified in Schedule IV annexed to these rules and the fees shall be refunded to the appellant if the appeal is upheld by the appellate authority. (4) The action taken by the appellate authority shall conform to the provisions of section 6-F of the Act.” 9. A bare perusal of the aforesaid Section 6-F of the Act and Rule 121 of the Rules shows that an appeal can be filed only by a person who is aggrieved by an order of the licensing authority either refusing to grant licence or varying the conditions of the licence or suspending or revoking the licence. The respondent no.4 was not an applicant for a licence under the provisions of the said Act and he was certainly not aggrieved by either refusal to grant of licence or suspension or revocation thereof or varying of any conditions of licence granted in his favour. Therefore, the respondent no.4 clearly does not answer the description of an aggrieved person as provided under Section 6-F of the said Act and Rule 121 of the said Rules and yet the appeal filed by respondent no.4, purportedly under the said provision and rule, was entertained by the respondent no.3. 10. A perusal of the impugned order shows that a specific objection relying on the said provision and rule, was raised on behalf of the petitioner before respondent no.3. 10. A perusal of the impugned order shows that a specific objection relying on the said provision and rule, was raised on behalf of the petitioner before respondent no.3. It was recorded in the impugned order and yet it was not dealt with. Instead the respondent no.3 went ahead to consider merits of the contentions raised on behalf of the respondent no.4 and thereupon rendered finding on merits, consequently allowing the appeal and holding against the grant of licence to the petitioner. 11. Applying the said provision and rules to the facts of the present case, it becomes evident that the impugned order passed by respondent no.3 was wholly without jurisdiction. This aspect ought to have been considered and answered by the respondent no.3, before entering into the merits of the allegations raised by respondent no.4. Therefore, on this short ground, the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside. 12. Accordingly, the present writ petition is allowed and impugned order dated 19.03.2016 passed by the respondent no.3 is quashed and set aside, as being wholly without jurisdiction. The respondent no.4 would be at liberty to raise his grievance, if any, in an appropriate proceeding that may be available to him under law. 13 Rule made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.