The court emphasized that the lack of vehicular access to the licensed premises was not a valid reason to reject a renewal application, as per the provisions of Rule 112 of the Explosives Rules, 2008.

JUDGMENT :

P.B. Suresh Kumar, J.

1. Petitioner obtained during 2003, a licence in Form 20 of the Explosives Rules, 1983 to manufacture 5 Kgs of gun powder and 10 Kgs of fireworks. The said licence was being renewed from time to time, and after the Explosives Rules, 1983 was replaced by the Explosives Rules, 2008(the Rules), the licence was being renewed treating the same as one issued in Form LE-1 of the Explosives Rules, 2008. The latest renewal of the licence was for the period upto 31.03.2016. On 10.02.2016, the petitioner preferred an application for renewal of the licence again and the said application was rejected by the licensing authority namely, the third respondent on 15.03.2017. The petitioner preferred an application for reconsideration of the said order and the said application was rejected by the third respondent as per Ext. P4 order holding that there is no access to the licensed premises for taking vehicles during emergency. The premises of the petitioner does not have vehicular access. As such, when the third respondent insisted that there shall be vehicular access to the licensed premises, the petitioner has furnished before the third respondent, a letter of the adjoining land owner to the effect that he has no objection in taking vehicles to the licensed premises through his land in the event of an emergency. In Ext. P4 order, the third respondent took the view that the consent letter of the adjoining land owner cannot be acted upon since the said land is lying 2 feet down the road level. The petitioner challenged Ext. P4 order in appeal before the appellate authority namely the first respondent. In the said appeal, the first respondent found that the requirement in terms of the conditions of licence is only that there shall be free access to the premises for the authorities to ensure compliance of the provisions of the Explosives Act and the Rules made thereunder and consequently remitted the application preferred by the petitioner for fresh decision by the third respondent after examining the question whether access to the licensed premises through the adjoining land with the consent of its owner is sufficient compliance of the requirement concerning access. Ext. P5 is the order passed by the first respondent in this regard. Pursuant to Ext. P5 order, the third respondent passed Ext. P6 order rejecting the application of the petitioner for renewal of the licence again, holding that the land adjoining the licensed premises belongs to five persons and only one among them has given consent for access to the licensed premises through that land. Ext. P6 is under challenge in the writ petition.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Government Pleader.

3. It is seen that the licence referred to in the writ petition is one issued for manufacturing fireworks upto a maximum quantity of 10 Kgs and gun powder upto a maximum quantity of 5 Kgs at a time. As noted, the petitioner was holding the licence since 2003 and the same was renewed upto 31.03.2016. There is no case for the official respondents that the petitioner has violated conditions of licence at any point of time all these years. Ext. P1 is the latest order of renewal issued by the competent authority on 20.06.2011. The said renewal was after the introduction of the Explosives Rules, 2008. The impediment concerning access to the licensed premises was not raised on the previous occasions when the petitioner applied for renewal of licence. Be that as it may. As noted by the first respondent, the only requirement concerning access in the Explosives Rules, 2008 as fas as a licence issued in Form LE-1 is concerned, is the requirement in terms of condition No. 19 in the conditions of LE-1 licence which reads thus:

"Free access to the licensed premises shall be given at all reasonable times to any inspecting or sampling officer and every facility shall be afforded to the officer for ascertaining that the provisions of the Act and the Rules