J U D G M E N T

Dated this the 14th day of June, 2022 The petitioner, who is the holder of an explosive licence, is aggrieved by Ext.P3 proceedings of the District Magistrate, Kasaragod, whereby his licence has been suspended until further orders.

2. The petitioner states that he is a manufacturer of fire works and gun powder. The petitioner is doing his business after obtaining licence in Form LE-I as evidenced by Ext.P1.

Ext.P1 licence is still current.

3. While so, the petitioner was served with Ext.P3 proceedings dated 01.06.2022 of the District Magistrate, Kasaragod alleging that an excess quantity of 514.250 Kg. of explosive fire works was carelessly kept in the premises of the petitioner. A case is registered under Section 286 IPC and Section 9(B)(1)(b) of the Explosives Act, alleging that the petitioner has violated licence conditions by storing excess quantity of explosives. The District Magistrate as per Ext.P3 order, suspended the licence of the petitioner from

31.05.2022 until further orders.

4. Aggrieved by Ext.P3 order, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. The counsel for the petitioner contended that Ext.P3 is in violation of Rule 118 of the Explosives Rules as well as Section 9 of the Explosives Act, 1884. According to the petitioner, he has stored only permitted quantity of explosives/gun powder. The allegation that excess quantity was possessed by the petitioner is factually incorrect.

5. The counsel for the petitioner argued that as per Section 118(iii), every licence granted under the Explosives Rules, 2008 would be liable to be suspended or cancelled by an order of the licensing authority for any contravention of the Act or Rules or of any condition contained in such licence, or by order of the Central Government, if it is satisfied that there are sufficient grounds for doing so. However, the petitioner is before this Court contending that the holder of the licence shall be given an opportunity of being heard. Before issuing Ext.P3, the petitioner was not heard at all. Therefore, apart from violation of Rule 118 (1) of the Explosive Rules, Ext.P3 is liable to be set aside on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice.

6. The Government Pleader entered appearance and resisted the writ petition. The Government Pleader controverted all the material allegations in the writ petition. The Government Pleader pointed out that explosives exceeding 500 Kg. have been detected from the premises of the petitioner which was lying carelessly. This was in violation of the licence conditions.

7. As regards Rule 118, the Government Pleader pointed out that as per sub-clause (1) thereof, notwithstanding anything contained in the Rules, an opportunity of being heard need to be given to the licensor before his licence is suspended or cancelled, in a case where the licence is suspended by the licensing authority as interim measure for violation of any provisions of the Rules, or any conditions contained in such licence.

8. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader representing the respondents.

9. The petitioner has been running his business since

2015. He has been doing it on the basis of the licence issued by the competent authority. The licence has been extended from time to time. While so, the 2nd respondent issued Ext.P3 proceedings suspending the licence of the petitioner until further orders. A perusal of Ext.P3 would not indicate that the petitioner was not granted an opportunity of hearing while passing the order. The petitioner asserts that he was not put to notice before suspending his licence.

10. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the petitioner shall be given an opportunity to advance his case in defence. If the petitioner is able to give proper explanations for the allegations made in Ext.P3, the 2nd respondent will have to consider the same.

Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing the

2nd respondent to