Kanigolla Venkata Ramaswamy Gupta vs. State Of Andhra Pradesh

Held

The Court noted that the panchanama indicated small quantities of firecrackers and 3600 kgs of saltpeter. Crucially, it referred to a clarification from the Deputy Chief Controller of Explosives, filed with the writ petition, which stated that no license is required to possess, store, or sell saltpeter. The Court also referenced Section 6-C of the Explosives Act, 1884, which outlines conditions for license refusal and mandates the licensing authority to record reasons in writing and furnish a brief statement on demand. Given that the petitioner had applied for renewal on February 13, 2019, and the application was pending before the 4th respondent, the Court directed the 4th respondent to pass a reasoned order within three days of receiving a copy of the order and communicate it to the petitioner. The Court did not decide on the legality of the FIR or the ultimate renewal of the license, focusing solely on the procedural requirement of a reasoned order.

Facts

The petitioner, holding an explosives license since 1984 for selling firecrackers, applied for renewal for the year 2019-20 on February 13, 2019. The license period ended on March 31, 2019, and the renewal application remained pending. On October 6, 2019, the police found unsold firecrackers from the previous year and seized 72 bags of saltpeter. A case was registered against the petitioner under Sections 286, 336 read with 34 IPC and Section 9(b) of the Explosives Act. The petitioner's wife, proprietor of M/s Saranya Traders, possessed a GST registration and purchase bills for the saltpeter. The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the inaction of the 4th respondent (Revenue Divisional Officer) in not renewing the explosives license, deeming it illegal and arbitrary.

Key Issues

1. Whether saltpeter is an explosive substance requiring a license under the Explosives Act and Rules, and if possession, storage, and sale thereof necessitate such a license? (Question of law turning on the interpretation of the Explosives Act and Rules). Petitioner's contentions: Saltpeter is not an explosive and does not require a license under the Explosives Act. Reliance was placed on a clarification dated April 26, 2011, from the Deputy Chief Controller of Explosives to the District Collector, stating no license is needed for saltpeter. The firecrackers found were unsold stock from the previous year. Revenue's contentions: The Inspector of Police's report dated October 7, 2019, did not recommend license renewal due to the petitioner's involvement in Cr.No.255/19 under Sections 286, 336 read with 34 IPC and Section 9(B) of the Explosives Act. Written instructions from the Revenue Divisional Officer dated October 17, 2019, reiterated this.