Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 74564

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
M/s.Om Sakthi Fireworks – Appellant
Versus
Government of India – Respondent
WP(MD).No.22824 of 2025 | WP(MD).No.22827 of 2025

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: V.Abilash Shankar
For the Respondents: G.Vishnuram

Under Explosives Rules, 2008, Rule 111 requiring intimation of reconstitution of a licensed firm is mandatory; Rule 123 provides that licence cancels on death of licensee. Non-compliance justifies cancellation.

Headnote:(A) Explosives Rules, 2008 - Rule 111 and Rule 123 - Reconstitution of firm - Intimation to authorities - Mandatory requirement - Death of licensee - Cancellation of licence - Rule 111 requires that any reconstitution of a licensed firm must be communicated to the licensing authority along with antecedent verification certificate from District Magistrate - Rule 111 is mandatory, not directory - Rule 123 provides that on death of the licensee, the licence stands cancelled - No transfer of licence to legal heirs or newly inducted partners permitted - Failure to comply with Rule 111 renders the licence liable for cancellation.

(B) Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus - Scope of judicial review - The court found no infirmity in the orders cancelling the licence as the original licensees had died and no intimation of reconstitution was given - The petitioner entitled to apply afresh for a licence.

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a partnership firm originally holding explosive licences under LE-1 and LE-3, inducted new partners in July 2020 and later reconstituted the firm in January 2021 upon the death of one original partner, but failed to notify the respondents. In December 2022, the remaining original partner died. The respondents cancelled the licences on the ground that no original licensee remained alive. The petitioner challenged the cancellation, contending that Rule 111 is directory and that other partners were alive.

Findings of Court:
The Court held that Rule 111 of the Explosives Rules, 2008 is mandatory because it requires antecedent verification from the District Magistrate. Since the reconstitution was not notified, the authorities were entitled to treat the licence as having lapsed upon the death of the last original licensee. Rule 123 clearly states that the licence stands cancelled from the date of death of the licensee. Hence, the impugned orders were not vitiated.

Issues: Whether Rule 111 of the Explosives Rules, 2008 is directory or mandatory, and whether the cancellation of the explosive licence on the death of the original licensee without prior intimation of reconstitution was valid.

Ratio Decidendi: Rule 111 imposes a mandatory obligation to inform the licensing authority of any reconstitution of the firm and to furnish an antecedent verification certificate. In the absence of such intimation, the licence cannot be deemed to continue in favour of newly inducted partners. Rule 123 operates to cancel the licence automatically upon the death of the licensee. Consequently, the cancellation orders were lawful.

Result: Writ petitions dismissed. The petitioner is at liberty to make a fresh application for a licence.

COMMON ORDER

The present writ petitions have been filed by the original licence holder under LE-1 and LE-3 under Explosive Rules, 1983 challenging the two orders passed by the respondents on 27.06.2023 and the consequential order dated 30.10.2024 wherein the explosive licence of the writ petitioner firm has been cancelled.

2.Originally the explosive licence under LE-1 and LE-2 was granted in favour of the partnership firm by name M/s.Om Sakthi Fireworks in which one K.Kaliappan and K.Avudaithai were partners. The partnership firm was created in the year 1991 and the licence was granted on 11.02.1996. On 15.07.2020, two new partners were inducted into the firm who are son and daughter-in-law of the original partners. Though the induction to the partnership deed was registered before the Registrar of the firm, it was not brought to the notice of the respondents herein.

3.One of the partners namely Kaliappan had passed away on 24.12.2020 and the firm was reconstituted on 19.01.2021 with three partners excluding the deceased Kaliappan. Even this reconstitution was not brought to the notice of the respondent authorities.

4.On 05.02.2021, the respondents have reclassified the nature of the ownership from that of the partnership firm to the proprietorship firm primarily on the ground that out of two original partners namely Kaliappan and Avudaithai, only K.Avudaithai is alive. This reclassification order has also not been put to challenge.

5.On 13.12.2022, the original partner namely K.Avudaithai had passed away. On 30.10.2024, both the impugned orders have been passed cancelling LE-1 and LE-3 licence on the sole ground that the original licencee had passed away. These two orders are put to challenge in the present writ petitions.

6.According to the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner, though the induction of new partners on 15.07.2020 or reconstitution of the firm on 19.01.2023 were not brought to the notice of the authorities, they would not in any way vitiate the licence granted in favour of the petitioner firm. According to him, Rule 111 of Explosives Rules, 2008 is directory in nature and unless it is interpreted as mandatory in nature, the authorities cannot cancel the licence on the ground that the licencee had passed away.

7.According to the learned counsel, the son, daughter-in-law, Kaliappan and Avudaithai are valid partners of the firm. Therefore, when other licencees are alive, the authorities cannot cancel the licence on the ground that the licencee had passed away.

8.Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents had filed a counter and contended that as per Rule 111 of the Explosives Rules, any induction of new partner or reconstitution of the firm has to be mandatorily informed to the authorities so that the name of the licencee could be altered or amended accordingly. In the present case, though reconstitution of the firm has taken place on 15.07.2020 and on 19.01.2021, both of them were not brought to the notice of the respondents. In fact, the petitioner has to make an application and they should get antecedent verification certificate from the concerned officials for incorporating their names as licencee on basis of the reconstitution of the firm. Therefore, when the licence are cancelled under the impugned order on 30.10.2024, none of the original licencees were alive. Therefore, the order impugned in the writ petitions may be sustained.

9.Heard both sides and perused the material records.

10.The facts narrated above are not in dispute. As per Rule 111 of the Explosives Rules, as and when reconstitution of the firm which has been granted a licence under Explosives Rules takes place, the certificate of verification of antecedents from the District Magistrate has to be enclosed by way of an application to the authority seeking to include the new partners as licencee. Since the verification of antecedents is there, Rule 111 of Explosives Rules cannot be considered to be directory. In such circum

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 74564

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASHONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMARM/s.Om Sakthi Fireworks – AppellantVersusGovernment of India – RespondentWP(MD).No.22824 of 2025 | WP(MD).No.22827 of 2025

Under Explosives Rules, 2008, Rule 111 requiring intimation of reconstitution of a licensed firm is mandatory; Rule 123 provides that licence cancels on death of licensee. Non-compliance justifies cancellation.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
M/s.Om Sakthi Fireworks – Appellant
Versus
Government of India – Respondent
WP(MD).No.22824 of 2025 | WP(MD).No.22827 of 2025