IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
Renuka Yara, J
Bhuvaneshwari Enterprises – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO.13663 of 2026
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner challenges suspension of explosives licence for lack of due process. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. parties contest authority's power and necessity of hearing regarding licence suspension. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. court directs authority to provide hearing before concluding on licence suspension. (Para 5 , 6) |
ORDER:
Heard Mr. Ch. Venkat Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri N. Bhujanga Rao, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India appearing for respondents. Perused the record.
2. The writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:
“….. (a) to set aside the order dated 05.02.2026 in No.E/HQ/TG/22/791 (E70206) suspending the Licence No.E/HQ/TG/22/791 (E70206) for interim measure, as being illegal, arbitrary, violative of the principles of natural justice, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and violative of the Explosives Rules, 2008, (b) to set aside all consequent proceedings pursuant to the impugned letter No.E/HQ/TG/22/791 (E70206) dated 12.01.2026 issued by the respondent No.2 to petitioner and (c) consequently, suspend the operation of order dated 05.02.2026 in No.E/HQ/TG/22/791 (E70206) passed by 4th respondent without authority and not granting personal hearing to petitioner as illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable in law and if the interim relief is not granted, the petitioner will suffer irreparable harm and will adversely affect its business operations and …..”
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned suspension order dated 05.02.2026 is not issued by a competent authority, that an opportunity of hearing was not given and that purchases in question were made prior to issuance of G.O dated 01.07.2025.
4. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondents submits that the impugned suspension order was issued by a competent authority as per definition of Controller in the Explosive Rules, 2008, that opportunity of hearing is not necessary as per Section 118(5) of Explosive Rules and that all the bills have to be generated on-line but there was some discrepancy related to 7475 detonators. The petitioner has submitted an explanation for the show cause notice but the same was found to be unsatisfactory. Therefore, the suspension order was passed. Currently, final decision is not yet taken.
5. Since the licence is suspended, the petitioner is unable to carry on with the day to day activities leading to loss in business. In the circumstances, respondent No.4 authority is directed to take a final decision on the impugned order dated 05.02.2026 by giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
6. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.
Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this petition, shall stand closed.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.