AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The present petition has been filed claiming that the petitioners are
small shop-keeper. To earn their livelihood in the previous years also, they
used to sell small firecrackers near Diwali as temporary retailer. It is
pleaded that the petitioners and other similarly situated small time vendors
used to purchase small quantity of firecrackers to further sell to general
public. It is pleaded by the petitioners that this average sale used not to
exceed Rs.50,000/- in a given year. Since the petitioners and similarly
situated persons were only small time vendors not selling firecrackers more
than 100 kilograms, in any case, therefore the District Administration felt no
necessity for issuance of any licence for these vendors in the previous years.
Hence, it is pleaded that in the previous year no temporary licence
whatsoever was issued in Sunam, District Sangrur. It is further pleaded that
this time also the petitioners and similarly situated persons intended to earn
some money to celebrate their Diwali festival. However, the Administration
has stopped them from selling the firecrackers on Diwali eve. The reasons
stated by the Administration is the order dated 13.10.2017 passed by this
Court in CWP No. 23548 of 2017.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that even the order
passed by the Division Bench in the above said petition has not been
followed by the Administration. It is submitted by the counsel that even in
terms of the above said order of Division Bench, the Administration was
required to invite applications from the intending vendors for issuance of the
temporary licences. However, the Administration has not invited any
applications for issuance of temporary licences for sale of crackers at Sunam,
District Sangrur. Therefore, according to the counsel for the petitioners, the
action of the respondents is not in conformity even with the above said
orders passed by the Division Bench.
Counsel further submits that since the petitioners and similarly
situated other persons are very small time vendors and they used not to sell
firecrackers more than 100 kilograms and as specified in Rule 9 of the
Explosives Rule of 2008, therefore, even a license was not required by them
to sell the firecrackers in terms of Rule 9 mentioned above.
Counsel for the State has filed the reply by way of affidavit of
Deputy Commissioner, Sangrur in the Court. The same is taken on record.
The reply filed by the State shows that the contention of the counsel for the
petitioners that no applications have been invited by the Administration
pursuant to the order of the Division Bench, is right. In the reply it is
admitted that no applications have been invited in pursuance of the order
dated 13.10.2017 passed by the Division Bench for the reasons that the order
restricts the number of temporary licences to be issued to 20% of the licence
issued in the previous year. But in the District of Sangrur in the previous
years no licences were issued by the Administration. Hence, it was not
considered necessary to invite the applications this year. Still further, the
reply shows that there is nothing in it to dispute the plea of the petitioners
that they are a small time vendors who used to temporarily sell firecrackers
for very small amounts and may be within the limits prescribed by Rule 9 of
the Explosives Rule 2008. However, learned counsel for the State
vehemently contends that the sale of the crackers have to be discouraged
keeping in view the spirit of the order passed by the Division Bench of this
Court.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that they have utmost
regard qua the order passed by Division Bench of this Court. They would
have applied for a licence as prescribed by the Administration; had the
administration invited the applications in terms of the order passed by the
Division Bench. However, counsel submits that now no time is left to
undertake the process of issuance of licences by the administration or for
making applications by the petitioners and other similarly situated persons.
Therefore, it is his submission that the petitioners and similarly situated
persons be permitted to sell the crackers of limited quantity. He further
points out the observations made by the Division Bench in direction No.3 in
the above said order dated 13.10.2017 to contend that this Court can permit
the sale of crackers in a given situation. It is his contention that the time is
very short since only one day is left for Diwali.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and considered
the entire matter, this Court is of the view that since the Administration has
not invited the application as per the order of Division Bench, may be for
their perceived right reasons, therefore, the petitioners and similarly situated
other persons cannot be debarred from selling the firecrackers, as per the
practice in the previous years. However, since the Division Bench of this
Court is already seized of the matter and the spirit of the order passed by the
Division Bench is to discourage the excessive use of the firecrackers,
therefore, the petitioners and similarly situated persons cannot be given
permission to sell unlimited quantity and the quality of the firecrackers.
In view of the above situation, it is ordered that the petitioners and
similarly situated small time sellers of firecrackers of District Sangrur would
be permitted to sell the firecrackers for 2 days till 19th October 2017 as per
the past practice. However, it is made clear that the petitioners and other
similarly situated persons would not be permitted to sell the crackers having
the effect of heavy and extra-ordinary blast.
With the above said directions the present writ petition is disposed.
Order may be given under signatures of Court Reader to both the
parties free of cost.