The main legal point established is the importance of complying with safety measures and accessibility for fire-fighting in the sale of fireworks, and the authority of the District Magistrate to cancel the no objection certificate if necessary for public peace and safety.

The present writ petition has been preferred for quashing the order of cancellation of no objection certificate contained in letter no. 70(i) dated 12.07.2018 issued by the respondent no. 3 – the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi as well as for quashing the order of cancellation of licence for sale of fireworks contained in memo no. E/EC/JH/24/11 E-18137) dated 23.08.2018 issued by the respondent no. 2 – the Deputy Chief Controller of Explosives, Petroleum and Explosives Safety Organization, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Government of India. Further, prayer has been made for restraining the respondents from forcing the petitioner to shift his place of business since he deals with the fire crackers under Class-7, Division-2, Sub-Division-1 and 2 of the Explosives Rules, 2008.

2. The factual background of the case as emerges from the writ petition is that the petitioner is carrying on the business of fireworks at Cart Sarai Road, Ranchi after taking licence under Class-7, Division-2, Sub Division-1 and 2 under the Explosives Rules, 2008 from the respondent no. 2. His licence was also renewed from time to time. However, vide order dated 26.04.2017, the respondent no. 4 – the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Ranchi issued a general order in exercise of power conferred under Section 144 Cr.P.C to all the firework dealers to shift their place of business from Upper Bazar Area (Ranchi) to another place. The petitioner replied on 05.05.2017 stating that his shop is situated at a place which is accessible to the fire extinguisher equipment. Subsequently, vide letter dated 14.10.2017, a joint inspection team was constituted and on the basis of the report, the respondent no. 3 vide letter dated 29.03.2018 directed the respondent no. 4 to hold a meeting with the licensees of the fireworks. Accordingly, the meeting was held on 07.04.2018 and it was resolved that the concerned licensees shall shift their shops till 07.05.2018. In the said meeting, it was also resolved to recommend for cancellation of no objection certificates issued in favour of the concerned licensees. Thereafter, the respondent no. 3 vide letter no. 70(i) dated 12.07.2018, cancelled the no objection certificate issued to the petitioner. Subsequently, the respondent no. 2 vide order dated 23.08.2018 also cancelled the fireworks licence of the petitioner.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is carrying on the business of fireworks after obtaining licence and in conformity with the provisions of the Explosive Act, 1884 and the Explosives Rules, 2008 framed thereunder. It is also submitted that the respondent authorities have arbitrarily directed the petitioner to shift his shops/godowns from the present place of business to some other place. The impugned orders of cancellation of no objection certificate and the licence have been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice since no opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner before passing such orders. It is also submitted that the petitioners have fitted all necessary fire extinguishing systems as directed by the Fire Department. The place of business of the petitioner is situated by the side of 30 ft. wide road which is easily accessible to all types of vehicles. Even tankers containing water for supply in different parts of the city used by the Ranchi Municipal Corporation are also parked in the huge area of land just beside the shop of the petitioner. It is further submitted that the Explosives Rules, 2008 does not prescribe the area for which the licence is to be granted, rather it prescribes for safety measures to be undertaken by the licensee which the petitioner had duly been following. It is further submitted that the Explosive Act, 1884 provides for delegation of power and for any decision in the context of Section 5, 6, 6A, 14 and 17 of the Act, 1884, the delegation has to be made by the Central Government. Hence, the respondent no. 4 had no power or