Pending criminal charges alone do not constitute valid grounds to refuse renewal of a license under the Explosive Rules without a conviction.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P3 order by which his application for renewal of licence for sale of fireworks, crackers and sparklers was rejected on the ground that C.C.No.1736/2016, is pending against him and stating that he would be free to submit application as and when a judgment was rendered in the said case in his favour.

3. According to the petitioner, there is no provision for refusing renewal of licence on the ground that a crime is registered or is pending against the licensee. Pointing out Rule 118(2) of the Explosives Rules, Smt.Sanjana R. Nair, the learned counsel for the petitioner argued that it is only on conviction and sentence under a criminal offence that an application for renewal of license can be rejected.

4. She also argued that the crime case, which is referred to in the order Ext.P3, is of the year 2016; but the respondents had not taken any action against him till the licence expired on 31.03.2019.

5. The respondents 2 and 3 had filed a counter affidavit supporting the order Ext.P3. It is stated that petitioner had submitted an application for renewal of license on 24.12.2018 and the said application was rejected as per order dated 14.08.2019, based on the objection raised by the police submitting a report that a crime no.409/16 was registered against the petitioner under Section 9B (1) of the Explosives Act, 1884 at Kattur Police Station on 12.04.2016, for illegally storing 6.5kg manufactured fire works and 9.7kg of chinese crackers in a tea shop building and that C.C. 1736/2016 is pending in Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Irinjalakuda. It is stated that Ext.P3 order was passed on his application dated 14.09.2019 requesting for reconsideration of the order of rejection. According to the respondents, the action of the petitioner was in violations of the conditions under rule 83(7) of Explosive Rules and the rejection was under Rule 127 of Explosives Rules 2008, considering the safety and security of the lives of the public. It is also their case that the petitioner has not exhausted from the statutory remedy available before the Appellate authority.

6. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner the issue is covered by the judgments of this Court in W.P.(C) No.2633/2016 (Ext.P5)

and W.P.(C) No.22083/2019 (Ext.P4).

7. Smt.Princy Xavier, the learned Government Pleader argued that petitioner is an accused in a criminal case for offences under Section 9B (1)(b) of the Explosives Act for storing fire crackers in a tea shop in violation of the conditions of his license. She pointed out that unlike the petitioners in the Exts.P4 and P5 judgments, petitioner herein is an accused in an offence under the Explosives Act itself and he has violated the conditions of the license granted to him and therefore those judgments cannot be applied in the case of the petitioner.

8. Heard the learned Counsel on both sides.

9. Rule 116 of the Explosives Rules, 1988, provides for the circumstances under which a renewal of license can be refused.

“116. Refusal to amend or renew a licence.—(1)

The licensing authority refusing to amend or renew a licence shall record the reasons for such refusal in writing.

(2) The licensing authority shall refuse to

renew a licence if such licence can be revoked in

accordance with the Act or these rules.

(3) A brief statement of reasons for refusal to

renew a licence shall be given to the holder of the licence on demand unless in any case the

licensing authority is of the opinion that it will not be in public interest to furnish such statement.

(4) Where the renewal of the licence is refused, the fee paid for the renewal shall be refunded to the licensee after deducting the proportionate fee for the period beginning from the date from which the licence was to be renewed up to the date from which renewal thereof is refused.

(5) Before refusing renewal of a licence under the rule, the holder of the licence shall be given an opportunity of being heard.”

10. Rule 118 of the Rules provi