Back
2013 Supreme(Del) 2397
DELHI HIGH COURT
V.K.Jain, J.
Kali Charan - Appellant
Versus
Commissioner of Delhi Police - Resopndent
W.P.(C) 6758/2013 & W.P.(C) 6781/2013
Decided On : 28-10-2013
For the Appellant : Mr. Tarun Sharma, Adv.
For the Respondent: Ms. Zubeda Begum, Standing Counsel with Ms. Sana Ansari, Advs.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the provisions of Rule 86(3) of the Explosives Rules and its applicability to temporary shops, as well as the conflict between Rule 84(2) and Rule 86(3) in terms of distance requirements for storage and sale of fireworks.
Headnote:
Fire Crackers - Grant of Temporary Licences - Explosives Rules - Rule 86(3), Rule 84(2) - The court discussed the provisions of Rule 86(3) of the Explosives Rules and its applicability to temporary shops. It also highlighted the conflict between Rule 84(2) and Rule 86(3) in terms of the distance requirements for storage and sale of fireworks. The court set aside the impugned orders and directed the respondents to pass fresh orders for the grant of temporary licenses to sell fire crackers in temporary shops.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners applied for temporary licenses to sell fire crackers, but their applications were rejected based on the existence of nearby shops selling similar products. They sought relief from the court, citing violation of constitutional rights.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the rejection of the petitioners' applications based solely on the proximity of other shops selling fire crackers was not justified. It also highlighted the conflict between the distance requirements for temporary shops under Rule 84(2) and the provisions of Rule 86(3).
Issues: The main issue was the rejection of the petitioners' applications for temporary licenses based on the proximity of other shops selling fire crackers.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the provisions of Rule 86(3) of the Explosives Rules did not apply to temporary shops and highlighted the conflict between Rule 84(2) and Rule 86(3) in terms of distance requirements for storage and sale of fireworks.
Final Decision: The court set aside the impugned orders and directed the respondents to pass fresh orders for the grant of temporary licenses to sell fire crackers in temporary shops.
V.K.Jain, J.
The respondent-Commissioner of Police, Delhi invited applications for grant of temporary licences for selling fire crackers in Delhi during the period from 11.10.2013 to 05.11.2013. The petitioners before this Court applied for grant of such a licence in terms of Rule 113 of the Explosives Rules. The application of the petitioners for grant of such licence were, however, rejected vide two separate orders both dated 24.10.2013 on the ground that a shop exists within the range of 15 meters from the respective shop of the petitioners. Being aggrieved from the aforesaid rejection, the petitioners are before this Court seeking the following relief:-
“a. allow the present writ petition in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent, Commission of Delhi Police;
b. issue the appropriate writs of mandamus & certiorari or directions to the respondent, Commissioner of Delhi Police, for the grant of a Temporary Fire Works License in favour of the Petitioner by setting aside the arbitrary, discriminatory & illegal impugned order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Central District, Delhi Police dated 24.10.2013 for the reason of the same being in violation of the Articles-14, 19 (1) (g) & 21 of the Constitution of India.”
2. The learned Standing Counsel for the Government of NCT of Delhi, who appears on advance notice, justifies the rejection in view of the provisions of Rule 86(3) of Explosives Rules. The petitioners, on the other hand, rely upon the orders of Hon?ble Supreme Court dated 22.10.1993 and 01.11.1993 in SLP(C) No. 17327-28/1993.
3. A perusal of the order of the Hon?ble Supreme Court dated 22.10.1993 would show that the appellants before the Apex Court had been selling fire crackers between Dussehra and Diwali in Sadar Bazar and Jama Masjid are on the strength of temporary licences granted to them by Delhi Police. Pursuant to a revised policy, formulated by Delhi Police, they were denied temporary licence for sale of fire crackers in the regular shops and were directed to put temporary stalls in an adjacent park for the sale of fire crackers. The permanent licence holders were, however, allowed to carry on the business of selling fire crackers in their respective shops. Two writ petitions were filed challenging the refusal to grant permanent licence to sell fire crackers. The petitioners were not parties to the said petitions though they intervened on learning of the matter. The respondents before the High Court relied upon a revised policy whereby grant of temporary licence for sale of fire crackers at regular shops had been discontinued. The High Court dismissed the aforesaid writ petitions making certain observations in support of the revised policy. Pursuant thereto, the appellants moved the Supreme Court by way of Special Leave Petitions. The Apex Court directed the authorities to consider the request for grant of temporary licence to pucca shop owners in Sadar Bazar and Jama Masjid areas provided the shopkeepers provided in their shops – (a) sufficient number of sand bags as may be directed by the authority; (b) a water tank of the capacity as may be determined by the authority; (c) one or more fire extinguishers, as may be directed by the authority; (d) restriction on stock to be kept so as not to exceed the quantity allowed by the authority; and (e) such other precautions as the authority may consider appropriate to direct.
It was, however, directed that the temporary licenses will be issued to only those shop owners whose shops were not adjacent to shops in which inflammable or highly combustible products were sold.
4. Pursuant to the aforesaid order of the Apex Court, the authorities issued a circular imposing conditions inter alia that the premises to be used for sale of crackers, etc. shall be at a minimum distance of fifteen metres from any such premises used for storage of similar explosives and hazardous materials. When the matter was taken up by the Hon?ble Supreme Court, the au
