Back
: Licence Under Explosives Act Doesn't Shield Firecracker Shops from Fire Safety Rules
In a significant ruling, the has clarified that a licence obtained under the for running a wholesale firecracker shop does not absolve the dealer from complying with fire safety measures prescribed under the . However, the court held that the fire authorities cannot demand a separate licence under the state law; their role is limited to inspecting premises and reporting to the under the central enactment.
Justice Suddala Chalapathi Rao, presiding over a , disposed of filed by the and five of its members. The petitioners had challenged issued by the , and subsequent notices from the Divisional Fire Officer, requiring them to obtain a licence under .
Case Background: The Conflict of Two Licensing Regimes
The petitioners, all wholesale dealers in firecrackers, held valid licences under the and its rules, which central enactment governs the manufacture, storage, possession and sale of explosives. For years, they operated their permanent shops without interference. The trouble began when the State issued G.O.Ms.No.47 under the and the . The Divisional Fire Officer then issued under Rule 29(5)(a) of the 2006 Rules, calling upon some members to obtain fire service licences within 30 days.
The petitioners argued that the Explosives Act is a central law occupying the field, and the State had no power to impose a parallel licensing requirement. They contended that the Telangana Fire Services Act was designed for high-rise commercial and residential buildings, not for firecracker shops. The notices, they said, were .
Arguments from Both Sides
Counsel for the petitioners, , emphasised that the regulation of explosives falls within the of the to the Constitution, and the State Act was repugnant to the Central Act. He submitted that the licences already obtained under the Explosives Act should suffice, and the impugned G.O. was the Constitution.
On the other hand, the State, represented by Assistant Government Pleader , argued that the two enactments did not overlap. The Telangana Fire Services Act was enacted to ensure life and fire safety, particularly in hazardous premises like firecracker shops. Inspections had revealed inadequate fire safety measures. The State relied on the judgment in Caltex (India) Ltd. v. The Director, West Bengal Fire Services (AIR 1960 Cal 219), where it was held that the was in a state subject under List II of the . The State also cited a ruling of the in , which held that the powers of the Commissioner of Police under the were distinct from those under the Explosives Act.
No Overlap, No : Court’s Legal Analysis
Justice Rao found that the two Acts operate in separate spheres. While the Explosives Act governs the grant of licences for dealing in explosives, the Fire Services Act regulates safety measures at the premises where such trade is carried on. There is no conflict or overlapping.
The court observed:
“Evidently, the licences for running the firecracker shops will be issued by respondent No.5 under the . However, in respect of the premises where the petitioners are carrying on their business, the primary requirement is compliance with the Telangana Fire Services Act, under which appropriate safety and precautionary measures have to be followed by the petitioners, who are wholesale traders in firecrackers.”
It further noted that the State has ample power to regulate trade to prevent danger to public safety, and the impugned G.O. was not repugnant to the Explosives Act.
Key Observations from the Bench
The court made several crucial observations:
- “The respondent Nos.1 to 4 having recommended the issuance of licences to the petitioners by respondent No.5, now cannot direct the petitioners once again to obtain licences under the Fire Services Act, 1999 vide the impugned G.O.Ms.No.247 dated 27.04.2016.”
- “The licences of the petitioners for running the firecracker business are renewed once every five years after obtaining appropriate reports from respondent Nos.1 to 4. The respondents can furnish proper reports to the after personally inspecting the premises.”
- “Both enactments stand on different footing and there is no overlapping between the two acts.”
The Court’s Final Decision
Disposing of the writ petition, the court held that the impugned G.O. is legal and valid. However, the fire authorities cannot insist on a second licence under the Fire Services Act. Their duty is to inspect the premises for fire safety compliance and send reports to the under the Explosives Act when the traders’ licences come up for renewal. If an immediate danger to life or safety arises, the fire authorities may conduct inspections after notice and submit a report for appropriate action by the .
The judgment effectively balances the need for public safety with the principle of federal harmony, clarifying that state fire safety laws complement, not contradict, central explosive regulations. Firecracker dealers across Telangana must now ensure strict compliance with fire safety measures, even if they hold valid Explosives Act licences.
