Safety measures in heavily populated areas justify the denial of a firecracker sales license under the Indian Explosives Act.

1. The petitioner is an association of businessmen selling fireworks. The petitioner challenges the legality and validity of the order annexure - H dt. Sept. 19/23, 1987 passed by the District Magistrate, Palanpur. By this order the petitioner's application for renewal of licence type for selling fire - crackers in the bazar area has been rejected on the ground that the place in respect of which licence is applied for, is situated in a thickly populated locality; hence if the licence is granted in respect of these premises it would damage the public interest. It is also stated that the premises in question are not in accordance with the provisions of R.135 of the Explosives Rules , 1983.

2. The petition is not maintainable because against the impugned order an appeal is provided for under the relevant provisions of the Indian Explosives Act , 1884 and the Rules. But the learned counsel for the petitioner insisted that the petition be heard by this Court as the petitioners do not know which is the appellate authority and therefore there would not be any alternative, efficacious remedy. This ground cannot be accepted as the petitioners could have and should have enquired from the District Magistrate or from other relevant Government office as to where the appeal lies. Therefore, on the ground that there is alternative, efficacious remedy, the petition is required to be rejected. However, other contentions raised by the petitioner may also be examined.

3. When the application for renewal of the licence has been rejected by the respondent - District Magistrate it should also be borne in mind that alternative place (i.e. school compound) has been offered where the business of selling fire - crackers may be carried on by members of the petitioner association. In view of this alternative arrangement, at the most the members of the petitioner association may suffer some hardship and inconvenience, but they would not be deprived of an opportunity to carry on the business in fire - crackers. When safety of the people at large and public property is at stake and if the safety measures require that some hardship be undergone by those who want to deal in dangerous substances, it can never be said that the decision of the respondent - authority is in any way arbitrary or unreasonable.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that neither the provisions of the Act nor the rules provide that such licence cannot be given in respect of the premises which are situated in a thickly populated locality. Therefore, this is an irrelevant and extraneous ground. The contention cannot be accepted. Even if it is assumed that what petitioner's counsel states is correct and that there is no specific provision mentioning the ground situation of the premises in a thickly populated locality, the ground is certainly relevant to the very object of the statute. The Indian Explosives Act , 1884 and the Explosives Rules , 1983 are meant for the safety of the public property and the people. Therefore the reason mentioned in the order is certainly relevant one.

5. The contention raised by the petitioner that in other cities like Ahmedabad, Baroda and Surat such licences are given and therefore this ground is extraneous and irrelevant cannot be accepted. What safety measures are insisted on by the licensing authority in the cities like Ahmedabad, Baroda and Surat is not on record. Assuming for a moment that without taking any safety measures licence is issued by another licencing authority in Ahmedabad, Baroda and Surat, that cannot be a ground to say that the reason mentioned in the impugned order by the District Magistrate, Palanpur - respondent I herein - is irrelevant and extraneous.

6. The learned counsel