JUDGMENT :

Suman Shyam, J.

Heard Mr. S. Kataki, learned counsel for the writ petitioner. I have also heard Mr. D. Saikia, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. S. Bora, learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 1 and 2. Mrs. D.D. Barman, learned Government Advocate, Assam, has appeared for the respondent no. 3.

2. The writ petitioner is a businessman by profession and runs a shop wherein, fire crackers are sold. For carrying on with his aforesaid business, the petitioner has obtained a trade license from the Guwahati Municipal Corporation (GMC), Guwahati. The present petition has been filed being aggrieved by the order dated 03/07/2019 issued by the Deputy Commissioner/South Zone, GMC, directing the petitioner to obtain an "NOC" from the Director of Fire Services, Government of Assam and produce the same within seven days, failing which, his trade license bearing no. 179610 dated 17/08/2015 would be cancelled. As an interim measure, the petitioner was restrained from selling and purchasing fire crackers so as to prevent any possible disaster.

3. Mr. Kataki, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that his client has obtained "NOC" from the competent authority under Rule 102 of the Explosive Rules, 2008 and as such, there was no further necessity to obtain another NOC from the Director of Fire Services, Assam. Referring to the explosive license issued to the petitioner by the Deputy Chief Controller of Explosive. Mr. Kataki has submitted that no further license or NOC, save and except, the trade license from the GMC authority was required for selling and purchasing fire crackers. It is also the submission of the learned counsel for the writ petitioner that as per section 180 of the GMC Act, 1971, the GMC is authorized to issue trade license taking note of the nature of the trade or business carried out by the applicant. Contending that the Act of 1971 does not confer any authority upon the GMC to insist on NOC from the Director, Fire Services, Mr. Kataki has argued that the impugned order dated 03/07/2019 is illegal and therefore, liable to be set aside by this Court.

4. Assailing the impugned order dated 03/07/2019, Mr. Kataki has further argued that the Assam Fire Services Act, 1985 operates in a different field, which has nothing to do with trade and commerce carried out by an entity and therefore, it was wholly inappropriate for the respondents to insist on NOC from the Director of Fire Services and on such ground, suspend his trade license. According to Mr. Kataki, it is the Deputy Commissioner of the District, who is competent to issue a license in respect of fireworks under Section 17 of the Act of 1985. Since the Deputy Commissioner has already granted NOC in favour of the writ petitioner, based on which, the Explosive License under Explosive Rules of 2008 was obtained, the consent of the Deputy Commissioner in this case. The learned counsel, therefore, submits that since Section 180 of the GMC Act of 1971 does not lay down any provision for obtaining NOC from the Director, Fire Services, there is no scope for the GMC authorities to add words to the statue so as to expand its ambit.

5. Mr. D. Saikia, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, contends that the license issued by the Chief Controller of Explosive cannot supplement the requirement of fire safety, which is the responsibility of the State Government. Therefore, merely because the petitioner is holding a license from the Controller of Explosive, the same would not obviate the need for obtaining a separate license under the Act of 1985. It is also the submission of the respondents' counsel that in this case, the petitioner would not only require a trade license from the GMC authorities and an Explosive License under the Explosive Rules of 2008 but a separate license from the Deputy Commissioner of the District under Section 17 of the Act of 1985 to deal in fire crackers. Mr. Saikia has also argued that the GMC is responsi