2020 Supreme(AP) 596
ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATI
Cheekati Manavendranath Roy, J.
K.v. Manikyamba - Appellant
Versus
Union Of India - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 20682 of 2020
Decided On : 10-11-2020
R. Siva Sai Swarup, Advocate
Authorities must consider renewal applications within a reasonable time and dispose of them expeditiously, allowing the petitioner to continue the business if no order is passed.
Headnote:
Rule 112 - License Renewal - The court directed the authorities to consider the petitioner's application for renewal of her license for running a fireworks business and dispose of it expeditiously, allowing her to continue her business if no order is passed by a specified time.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought direction to the authorities not to interfere with her fireworks business pending renewal of her license, citing the deeming provision under Rule 112 of the Explosives Rules, 2008.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the authorities had not disposed of the petitioner's renewal application for eight months, despite a previous court order directing expeditious consideration.
Issues: The issues revolved around the safety of the public at the business location and the delay in considering the renewal application.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the authorities must consider the renewal application within a reasonable time and directed them to dispose of the application by a specified time, allowing the petitioner to continue her business if no order is passed.
Final Decision: The court directed the authorities to dispose of the renewal application by a specified time and allowed the petitioner to continue her business if no order was passed by that time.
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. 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, t