AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The petitioner is an association of businessmen selling fireworks. The petitioner challenges the legality and validity of the order annexure-H dt. Sept. 19/123, 1987 passed by the District Magistrate, Palanpur. By this order the petitioner''s application for renewal of licence for selling f ire-crackers in the bazar area has been rejected on the ground that the place in respect of which licence is applied for, is situated in a thickly populated locality; hence if the licence is granted in respect of these premises it would damage the public interest. It is also stated that the premises in question are not in accordance with the provisions of R. 135 of the Explosives Rules, 1983.
The petition is not maintainable because against the impugned order an appeal is provided for under the relavant provisions of the Indian Explosives Act, 1884 and the Rules. But the learned counsel for the petitioner insisted that the petition be heard by this Court as the petitioners do not know which is the appellate authority and therefore there would not be any alternative, efficacious remedy. This ground cannot be accepted as the petitioners could have and should have enquired from the District Magistrate or from other relevant Government office as to where the appeal lies. Therefore, on the ground that there is alternative, efficacious remedy, the petition is required to be rejected. However, other contentions raised by the petitioner may also be examined.
When the application for renewal respondent-District Magistrate it should also be borne in mind that alternative place (i.e. school compound) has been offered where the business of selling fire-crackers may be carried on by members of the petitioner association. In view of this alternative arrangement, at the most the members of the petitioner association may suffer some hardship and inconvenience, but they would not be deprived of an opportunity to carry on the business in fire-crackers. When safety of the people at large and public property is at stake and if the safety measures require that ''some hardship be undergone by those who want to deal in dangerous substances, it can never be said that the decision of the respondent-authority is in any way arbitrary or unreasonable.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that neither the provisions of the Act nor the rules provide that such licence cannot be given in respect of the premises which are situated in a thickly populated locality. Therefore, this is an irrelevant and extraneous ground. The contention cannot be accepted. Even if it is assumed that what petitioner''s counsel states is correct and that there is no specific provision mentioning g the ground situation of the premises in a thickly populated locality, the ground is certainly relevant to the very object of the statute. The Indian Explosives Act, 1884 and the Explosives Rules, 1983 are meant for the safety of the public property and the people. T therefore the reason mentioned in the order is certainly relevant one.
The contention raised by the petitioner that in other cities like Ahmedabad, Baroda and Surat such licence are given and therefore this ground is extraneous and irrelevant cannot be accepted. What safety measures are insisted on by the licensing authority in the cities like Ahmedabad, Baroda and Surat is not on record. Assuming for a moment that without taking any safety measures licence is issued by another licencing authority in Ahmedabad, Baroda and Surat, that cannot be a ground to say that the reason mentioned in the impugned order by the District Magistrate, Palanpur-respondent 1 herein-is irrelevant and extraneous.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is not mentioned in the order which particular provision of R. 135 is not complied with by them petitioner and therefore the second round is vague. It is not shown by the petitioner that the provisions of R 135 are complied with by them and that it was not open to the respondent-authority to rely upon this ground. The petitioner did not say that :
(1) all explosives on the premises shall be kept in a brick, stone or concrete building which is closed and secured;
(2) such part will be a place where no outside person will have access;
(3) the premises shall have a floor area of minimum nine square metres;
(4) the premises have independent entrance and exit;
(5) the premises are situated in a building used for other purposes also or not; that it is not situated under a staircase and that the provisions of R. 135(4) are complied with; and
(6) the premises are situated at ground level.
When the petitioner itself does not show *in the petition that the premises are in accordance with R. 135, non-mention of specific detail with regard to particular ingredient of R. 135 does not vitiate the order.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order is mala fide inasmuch as in the year 1984 also the respondent authority had refused to grant licence, and thereafter pursuant to the order passed by the High Court licence was granted. It is submitted that the order reproduced in para 3 of the petition was passed by me in Spl. Civil Appln. No. 5075 of 1984. It may be so. If I have passed that order I feel that I have committed an error. It is for the District Magistrate and the authority concerned to provide for the safety of the people and to ensure as to whether dangerous things should be allowed to be sold in a thickly populated locality or not. For determining such question, in the opinion of the legislature the best authority would be the officer concerned who is conferred with the power to determine such questions. The High Court would be justified in interfering with the decision of such officer only if it is shown that the officer concerned has acted arbitrarily and/or with mala fide. If the order referred to by the learned counsel for the, petitioner has been passed by me, I do feel that I have committed a mistake.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even in the year 1985 the respondent authority had refused the licence. It was insisted that security for damages should be furnished by the petitioner. But this High Court set aside the condition with regard to furnishing of security for damages. Thereafter in the year 1986 the licence was refused on account of the communal disharmony in the city. On earlier occasions what happened is not very much material, because it is not the same individual who passed the different orders at different times. It is conceded that every time the orders were issued by different officers. This fact on the contrary negatives the contention of mala fides. How is it that all the times different officers react in the same manner and are refusing to grant licence?
From what is stated hereinabove I feel that when I passed order in special civil application No. 5075 of 1984 1 did commit a mistake. Even if fire extinguishers are kept ready in the vicinity of the places where the f ire-crackers are sold, it would not be possible to extinguish the fire before the fire takes its toll, detructs property and takes some lives.
The orders passed by the authority the year 1985 are not on record. But simply because one of the conditions from that order was removed by this High Court it cannot b said that this type of order has been passed with mala fides. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the lorry-walas are permitted to do the business in bazar area. If that be so, the District Magistrate should have taken proper care to ensure that lorry walas keep their lorry at safe places. However even if the lorry-walas are not restricted to do business in thickly populated locality, the petitioners do not get any right to do business at a place where it is dangerous to allow such business to be carried on. Further, there is nothing to show that licence has been given to lorry-walas.
For the aforesaid reasons the petition is rejected.
Petition dismissed.