Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 710 (AP)

K. v. Manikyamba VS Union Of India

2020-11-10

CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

body2020
JUDGMENT Cheekati Manavendranath Roy, J. - The writ petitioner seeks direction to the respondents 2 to 4 not to interfere with her business of fire works, pending finalization of renewal of her licence for a period from 01.04.2020 to 31.03.2025. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Home. 3. The petitioner herein claims to have a licence for running the business of fire works in selling the crackers and other explosive material. It is her version that the said licence expired on 01.04.2020 and she has filed an application for renewal of the said licence from 01.04.2020 to 31.03.2025 and the same is pending with the competent authority. The same is not considered and disposed or till now. It is stated that the NOC given to her to run the said explosive business is still subsisting and as per Rule 112 of the Explosives Rules, 2008 (for short "Rules") that when an application filed for renewal of licence is pending consideration, that she is entitled to continue the business till an order is passed to that effect as per deeming provision under Rule 112 of the above rules. It is her case that as the competent authority did not dispose of her application for renewal of her licence till now, that she is entitled to continue the business as per the aforesaid deeming provision of Rule 112. Therefore, as the respondents are now not allowing her to carry on with her business in connection with the present 'Deepavali' festival, she sought a direction to the respondents not to interfere with her business activities. 4. Learned Government Pleader for Home would submit that the place where the petitioner is carrying on the said explosive business is hazardous to the safety of the public to run the said business as it is in the public place and it is not safe to run the said business at the said place. Therefore, he would submit that the competent authority is still considering her application for renewal in view of the aforesaid precarious conditions. 5. Whether the place, where the petitioner is carrying on the said explosive business, is hazardous to the safety of the public or not, is to be ascertained by the competent authority and pass appropriate order to that effect. 5. Whether the place, where the petitioner is carrying on the said explosive business, is hazardous to the safety of the public or not, is to be ascertained by the competent authority and pass appropriate order to that effect. When the petitioner filed an application for renewal of her licence long back in the month of March, 2020 itself, the concerned authority is not justified in sitting over the said application without disposing of the same till now, even after expiry of eight (08) months period. He has to dispose of the said application as per law within a reasonable time. 6. Earlier also, when the petitioner approached this Court, this Court in Writ Petition No.18922 of 2020 directed the 3rd respondent therein to consider the renewal application of the petitioner submitted through online and pass appropriate order in accordance with law and rules expeditiously within four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 7. Therefore, despite the aforesaid order passed by this Court on 16-10-2020, it appears that no order is passed till now in compliance with the direction of this Court. Therefore, it is obvious that there are severe latches on the part of the respondents in not passing any appropriate order on the application filed by the petitioner. No explanation is offered before this Court as to why the respondents did not comply with the direction of this Court given in earlier W.P.No.18922 of 2020. It amounts to illegally preventing the petitioner from carrying on her business as per the deeming provision under Rule 112. 8. Therefore, in the said facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered view that this writ petition can be disposed of with a direction to the respondents 2 and 3 to immediately consider the said application of the petitioner for renewal of her licence by fixing a time limit to that effect and dispose of the same expeditiously in view of the ensuing 'Deepavali' festival. 9. Therefore, this Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents 2 and 3 to dispose of the application of the petitioner for renewal of her licence by 4-00 P.M. tomorrow i.e. on 11-11-2020 after hearing the petitioner. The petitioner shall appear before the competent authority for hearing on 11-11-2020. 9. Therefore, this Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents 2 and 3 to dispose of the application of the petitioner for renewal of her licence by 4-00 P.M. tomorrow i.e. on 11-11-2020 after hearing the petitioner. The petitioner shall appear before the competent authority for hearing on 11-11-2020. If no order is passed by 4-00 P.M. on 11-11-2020, the petitioner is entitled to continue her business in the light of the deeming provision available under Rule 112. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending, in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.