Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 2397 (MAD)

A. Nagoor Kani v. District Collector, Madurai

2024-10-17

N.SATHISH KUMAR

body2024
ORDER : 1. Mr.A.Kannan, learned Additional Government Pleader takes notice for the respondents 1 to 4 and Mr.M.Vaikkam Karunanithi, learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side), takes notice for the fifth respondent. 2. By consent of both parties, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself. 3. Challenge has been made to the cancellation of the license granted to the petitioner under the Explosives Act and Rules. 4. The petitioner is running a cracker shop in the name and style of 'Happy Agencies' at Melur Village. The license was obtained in the year 2015 in Licence No.13/2015. Subsequently, it was periodically renewed till 31.03.2024. When the petitioner had applied for further renewal of the license, the second respondent issued a show cause notice for the alleged lapses, such as, a house is situated in the upstairs of the petitioner's shop and a drainage is also situated in the alternative route. The petitioner submitted his explanation for the said lapses. However, without considering the same, the second respondent had cancelled the license of the petitioner. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner before cancelling the license granted to the petitioner. That apart, in the cancellation order, no reasons whatsoever have been assigned for such cancellation. 6. The learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents 1 to 4, on instructions, would submit that there was a violation in the premises of the petitioner. Hence, the license granted to the petitioner was cancelled. 7. When this Court posed a specific question as to what are the reasons for cancelling the license granted to the petitioner and whether such reasons are reflected in the order impugned in this writ petition, the learned Additional Government Pleader fairly submitted that no reasons have been assigned in the impugned order and the matter may be remanded back to the second respondent for fresh consideration. 8. It is not disputed that the license was granted to the petitioner in the year 2015. When the petitioner applied for renewal, the show cause notice was issued and the same has been properly replied by the petitioner. Thereafter, the impugned order has been passed considering the report of the District Revenue Officer. However, in the entire order, no reasons have been assigned as to what is the nature of violation. 9. When the petitioner applied for renewal, the show cause notice was issued and the same has been properly replied by the petitioner. Thereafter, the impugned order has been passed considering the report of the District Revenue Officer. However, in the entire order, no reasons have been assigned as to what is the nature of violation. 9. This is infact, contrary to the Rule 118 of the EXPLOSIVES RULES . Proviso to Rule 118 (1) of the EXPLOSIVES RULES makes it clear that before suspending or cancelling a licence under this rule, the holder of the licence shall be given an opportunity of being heard. Similarly, Rule 118 (6) of the EXPLOSIVES RULES mandates that a licensing authority for suspending or cancelling a licence shall record the reasons in writing. In the absence of recording such reasons, the order suspending or cancelling the license cannot be sustained in the eye of law. 10. In view of the above, the order impugned in this writ petition, dated01.10.2024 stands quashed and the matter is remitted back to the second respondent for fresh consideration. The second respondent shall pass orders afresh on the application submitted by the petitioner seeking renewal of license on its own merits and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Such an exercise shall be completed within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that till the orders are passed by the second respondent, the petitioner shall not be prohibited from continuing his business as per Rule 112(5) of the EXPLOSIVES RULES . 11.With the above observations, this writ petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.