The court emphasizes the necessity for independent decision-making by a statutory authority concerning licensing, as mandated by relevant rules.

JUDGMENT

Petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P6 Order, which rejected his application for transfer of licence in terms of Rule 113 of the Explosives Rules, 2008 . The essential reason, which is stated in Ext.P6 is a report by the District Police Chief stating that there is a chance of objection/opposition by the local public to the quarrying activies.

2. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Government Pleader, this Court notice that transfer of licence is something, which is specifically permitted by Rule 108 of the Explosives Rules, 2008 . As per the contents of Rule 108, a report from the District Police Chief is not contemplated. All what is required is a no objection from the District Magistrate. The impugned Ext.P7 is an Order passed in the application preferred by the petitioner for issuance of No Objection Certificate in terms of Rule 108(1)(i) of the . It is noticed that there is no independent mind application in so far as Ext.P7 is concerned, except endorsing the report of the District Police Chief, which is not warranted/mandated in terms of the Rules. It may be legal for the District Magistrate to call for a report from the District Police Chief as a methodology to collect necessary inputs. However, the same cannot be blindly followed or taken stock of, without there being an independent application of mind by the statutory authority, who is a District Magistrate.

3. This Court also notice that the issue involved is the transfer of an existing licence and all these inputs could have been gone into and considered at the time of issuance of the original licence in favour of the original licensee. There is also no quarrel that the licence in question is in force as of now.

4. In this circumstances, Ext.P7 cannot be sustained. The same will stand set aside. There will be a direction to the 2^nd respondent/Additional District Magistrate to reconsider the matter based on the observations contained in the statement and strictly in terms of the requirements of Rule 108 of the Explosives Rules, 2008 and to pass necessary orders in Ext.P2 application preferred by the petitioner seeking transfer. Needless to say that, the so called objection by the local public cannot stand in the way of petitioner, inasmuch as the same should have been considered at the time of grant of original licence. Let the above exercise be completed, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner will produce a copy of the judgment before the 2^nd respondent, for compliance.

The writ petition stands disposed of, as above.

Sd/-