A licence suspension under the Explosive Rules requires an opportunity for the licence holder to be heard before confirmation.

J U D G M E N T

Dated this the 09th day of September, 2024 Ext.P14 order passed by the 3rd respondent suspending the Explosive Licence of the petitioner is under challenge in this Writ Petition.

2. The petitioner is conducting a quarry on the strength of the licence and permit issued by statutory authorities. The 3rd respondent has issued Form LE-3 licence bearing No.41/LE3 to the petitioner. The said licence was cancelled by the 3rd respondent as per Ext.P14 order, on the ground that the petitioner has violated the conditions of the licence. It is challenging Ext.P14, this Writ Petition has been filed.

3. I have heard Smt.M.R Jayalatha, the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader, Sri.Rajeev Jyothish George.

4. The proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner to cancel the licence on the basis of a report preferred by the 5th respondent that certain explosive substances such as 2887 detonators, 700 gelatin sticks etc., were detected from the premises of the petitioner, which were kept near to the quarry site, unauthorisedly and without any safety precautions. A crime was also registered to that effect. According to the 3rd respondent, the petitioner has violated the conditions of the licence, which is clear from the recovery in excess of the permitted quantity of the explosive substances from the vicinity of the quarry. Hence, he has invoked Section 118 (5)(i) of the Explosive Rules, 2008 (for short, ‘the Rules’) and revoked the licence. 5. Section 118 of the Rules deals with suspension and revocation or cancellation of licence. Section 118 (III) of the Rules says that the licence granted under the Rule shall be liable to be suspended or cancelled by an order of the licensing authority for any contravention of the Act or these Rules or of any conditions contained in the licence or by order of the Central Government, if it is satisfied that there are sufficient grounds for doing so. However, the proviso to the said Section mandates that before suspending or cancelling a licence, the holder of the licence shall be given an opportunity of being heard. Sub section (5) of Rule 118 says that an opportunity of being heard need not be given to the holder of the licence before his licence is suspended or cancelled in cases where the licence is suspended by a licensing authority as an interim measure for violation of any of the provisions of the Act or the Rules or any of the conditions contained in such licence and in his opinion such violation is likely to cause imminent danger to the public. Proviso to said sub section says that where a licence is so suspended, the licensing authority shall give the holder of the licence an opportunity of being heard before the order of suspension is confirmed.

6. Thus the suspension of licence for violation of any of the conditions in the licence invoking sub-section (5)(i) of the Rules can be done only as an interim measure.

The licence holder still has to be given an opportunity of being heard before the order of suspension is confirmed. However, there is nothing to show in Ext.P14 order that it has been passed only as an interim measure.

Hence, this Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the 3rd respondent to give an opportunity for hearing the petitioner before Ext.P14 order of suspension is confirmed. The 3rd respondent is directed to pass a final order after hearing the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.