ORDER : PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the first respondent's impugned order in RA.5(1)15722/2018(E.A.No.01/2018), dated 13.09.2018 and quash the same as it devoid of merits and direct the first respondent to give suitable recommendation to the fourth respondent to consider the change of address and renewal of licence No.4/2010 for the retail sale of fireworks and crackers for his new premises at Door NO.6/315-A, Lenin Street, Paramakudi Taluk, Ramanathapuram District by considering petitioner's representation dated 24.03.2017, within the stipulated period as fixed by this Court. Mr.A.Haja Mohideen, learned Counsel on record for writ petitioner and Mr.K.Mu.Muthu, learned Additional Government Pleader, on behalf of all the seven respondents are before this Court. 2. A counter affidavit has been filed by the fourth respondent viz., 'District Revenue Officer' ('DRO' for brevity). 3. With consent of learned counsel on both sides, main writ petition is taken up, heard out and is being disposed of. 4. Subject matter in the instant writ petition arises under the Explosives Act, 1884 and the Rules thereunder being the Explosives Rules, 2008, which shall hereinafter be referred to as 'said Act and said Rules' respectively for the sake of brevity, convenience and clarity. 5. An order dated 13.09.2018 made by the first respondent has been called in question in instant writ petition and this order bears reference RA.5(1)15722/2018(E.A.No.01/2018) which shall hereinafter be referred to as 'impugned order' for the sake of brevity, convenience and clarity. 6. Vide impugned order, the first respondent has confirmed an order made by the fourth respondent rejecting writ petitioner's request for renewal of licence under said Act. 7. Before this Court proceeds further, it is necessary to advert to short facts of the case. To be noted short facts of instant case will suffice, as the instant writ petition now turns on a very narrow compass. 8. Writ petitioner applied for licence under the said Act, his application for licence travelled up to the first respondent and the first respondent vide order dated 26.10.2010 bearing reference No. RA.5(1)/88870/2009, set aside the order made earlier by DRO and directed DRO to issue licence to the writ petitioner. Accordingly, licence was issued by DRO to the writ petitioner and the same is licence No.4/2010. Accordingly, licence was issued by DRO to the writ petitioner and the same is licence No.4/2010. It is not in dispute that this licence is for a period of two years and that the same has to be renewed once in every two years. 9. It is also not in dispute that the licence was renewed periodically. The last renewal was on 29.09.2016 made by DRO. Obviously this renewal was valid upto 28.09.2018. When the petitioner sought further renewal, the same ran to rough weather, as the fourth respondent DRO rejected the renewal application by placing reliance Rule 86(3) of the said Rules. In other words, the fourth respondent rejected writ petitioner's application for renewal post 2018 on the ground that another shop in the name of Balaji Cracker shop (Thiru.Sekar) is situated within 15 metres from the premises where the writ petitioner sought renewal of licence. In this regard it is pertinent to mention that the original licence granted to the writ petitioner was at 7/293-A, Lenin Street, Paramakudi, whereas the instant renewal was sought with a change of address viz., at 6/315-A, Lenin Street, Paramakudi. 10. The aforesaid order of DRO, dated 19.03.2018 rejecting the renewal post 2018 was carried by way of an appeal by the writ petitioner to the first respondent and the first respondent vide impugned order confirmed the order of DRO primarily by placing reliance on Rule 86(3) of the said Rules. 11. In the instant writ petition, challenge to the impugned order is predicated on one pivotal ground. To be noted, notwithstanding several averments made in the counter affidavit filed by the fourth respondent and notwithstanding several grounds canvassed and contentions urged in the affidavit filed in support of writ petition, what is projected in the hearing by learned Counsel for the writ petitioner was one pivotal ground and that one pivotal ground is that the writ petitioner's licence is not for a 'shop', but it is only for a 'temporary shop for possession and sale of fireworks during festival'. Further his submission in this direction, learned Counsel for the writ petitioner submitted that temporary shop for possession and sale of fireworks during festival falls under Rule 84 of the said Rules, whereas in case of shops, Rule 86(3) of the said Rules will come into play. Further his submission in this direction, learned Counsel for the writ petitioner submitted that temporary shop for possession and sale of fireworks during festival falls under Rule 84 of the said Rules, whereas in case of shops, Rule 86(3) of the said Rules will come into play. In support of his contentions, learned Counsel drew the attention of this Court to the latest renewal made by DRO, dated 29.09.2016, which has been alluded to supra. A perusal of the said renewal made by DRO makes it clear that the licence i.e., No.4/2010 itself is for xx xxx xxx 12. Therefore, it emerges with clarity that licence which has been granted to the writ petitioner, which is subject matter of instant writ petition, viz., Licence No. 4/2010 is not for a shop mentioned in Rule 86(3) of said Rules and it is only for a temporary shop for possession and sale of fireworks during festival, falling under Rule 84 of said Rules. 13. Learned State Counsel, adverting to the counter affidavit filed by the fourth respondent drew the attention of this Court to paragraph No.11 and submitted that the original licence was granted at a different address viz., 7/293-A, Lenin Street, Paramakudi, whereas the instant renewal has been sought for in a different address viz., 6/315-A, Lenin Street, Paramakudi. Obviously and without any disputation, this Court is informed that the two addresses are in the same street, but that is not the issue. What is of relevance is whether the aforementioned other cracker shop viz., Balaji cracker shop (Thiru.Sekar) is situate within the prohibited distance under Rule 84 of the said Rules. In this regard, this Court deems it appropriate to extract Rules 84 and 86 which read as follows: “Rule 84: Temporary shops for possession and sale of fireworks during festivals:- During festivals, the District Magistrate may issue temporary licences for possession and sale of fireworks in a temporary shop subject to the following conditions, namely:- (1) The fireworks shall be kept in a shed made of non-flammable material which is closed and secured so as to prevent unauthorised persons having access thereto. (2) The sheds for possession and sale of fireworks shall be at a distance of at least three metres from each other and fifty metres from any protected work. (3) The sheds shall not face each other. (2) The sheds for possession and sale of fireworks shall be at a distance of at least three metres from each other and fifty metres from any protected work. (3) The sheds shall not face each other. (4) No oil burning lamps, gas lamps or naked lights shall be used in the shed or within the safety distance of the sheds. Electrical lights, if used, shall be fixed to the wall or ceiling and shall not be suspended by flexible wire Switches for each shop shall be fixed rigidly to the wall and a master switch shall be provided for each row of sheds. (5) Display of fireworks shall not be allowed within fifty metres of any shed. (6) In one cluster not more than fifty shops shall be permitted.” Rule 86. Safety distances to be maintained:- (1) Factory or magazine – The factory licenced for manufacture or magazine licenced for possession, sale or use of explosive shall maintain safety distance specified in Schedule VIII and condition of licence, as the case may be. (2) Store house – The store house licenced for possession of fireworks or safety fuse shall be at a distance of minimum fifteen metres from any such premises or any other premises used for storage of similar explosives, flammable or hazardous materials. (3) Shop – The shop licenced for storage and sale of small arms nitro-compound, fireworks or safety fuse shall be at a distance of minimum fifteen metres from any such premises or any other premises used for storage of similar explosives, flammable or hazardous materials.” 14. To be noted, with regard to Rule 84 of the said Rules, what is relevant is sub-rule (2) and with regard to Rule 86, what is relevant is sub-rule(3). Therefore, the question is whether Rule 84(2) has to be applied or Rule 86(3) has to be applied. As it is very clear that there is no factual disputation that the licence that has been granted to the writ petitioner is only for a temporary shop for possession and sale of fireworks during festival, what would apply is Rule 84(2). A perusal of Rule 84(2) of the said Rules reveals that the prohibited distance is 3 metres. Answer to the question as to whether prohibited distance is 3 metres lies in paragraph No.3 of the impugned order itself. Paragraph No.3 of the impugned order reads as follows: “3. A perusal of Rule 84(2) of the said Rules reveals that the prohibited distance is 3 metres. Answer to the question as to whether prohibited distance is 3 metres lies in paragraph No.3 of the impugned order itself. Paragraph No.3 of the impugned order reads as follows: “3. In the year 2010, licence was sanctioned to the petitioner for running retail sale of fireworks from the licenced premises at 7/293-A, Lenin Street. Based on the request of the petitioner to run the retail sale of fireworks from the new location at 6/315-A, Lenin Street, it was found from the inspection that one Thiru.Sekar, S/o P.Ramasamy was running Balaji Cracker shop at location No.6/313, Lenin street after obtaining Licence from the Joint Chief Controller of Explosives, South Circle, Chennai under licence No.E/SC/TN/24/494 (E34965) and the same has been renewed upto 2021. Besides, the distance between new location sought by the petitioner viz., 6/315-A and that of the licencee Thiru.Sekar at location 6/313, Lenin Street is only 4-5 metres. Besides objection letter has been given by Thiru.Sekar to grant any licence to run the fireworks shop in door No.6/315A, Lenin Street. As such, the Sub Collector (i/c), Paramakudi has not recommended the request of the Appellant/Petitioner.” (underlining made by this Court to supply emphasis) 15. A perusal of paragraph No.3 of the impugned order reveals that the aforesaid Balaji Cracker shop lies at a distance of 4-5 metres from the premises where the writ petitioner is seeking renewal of licence. Therefore, the factual position that the location, where the writ petitioner is now seeking renewal is beyond 3 metres from Balaji Cracker shop viewed in the light of Rule 84(2) leaves the sole ground based on which order of DRO and the impugned order has been passed deflated. Therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside. 16. The impugned order as well as the order passed by DRO being order dated 19.03.2018 are set aside. 17. This Court is informed that the fourth respondent DRO is the authority under the said Act to issue renewal of licence. 18. Therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside. 16. The impugned order as well as the order passed by DRO being order dated 19.03.2018 are set aside. 17. This Court is informed that the fourth respondent DRO is the authority under the said Act to issue renewal of licence. 18. In the light of this order, the fourth respondent is directed to process the renewal application of writ petitioner at the aforesaid address and pass orders on the same as expeditiously as possible and in any event, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 19. Instant Writ Petition is allowed with the aforesaid directions. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.