SRI AMMAN CHEMICALS Vs. THE CHIEF CONTROLLER OF EXPLOSIVES PETROLEUM & EXPLOSIVES SAFETY ORGANISATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a dealer in Ammonium Nitrate and was granted a licence in Form P -3 to store and trade in Ammonium Nitrate in terms of Ammonium Nitrate Rules, 2015, (Rules), framed under the Explosive Act, 1884, (Act). The petitioner applied for grant of licence in Form P -5 for import licence of Ammonium Nitrate, which was a pre - requisite for import, though the said product was freely importable and not a restricted item. The petitioner's application for import licence, was rejected by order dated 19.08.2015, on the ground that issue of licence in Form P -5, is considered only in favour of Ammonium Nitrate users, in the interest of National Security. This order dated 19.08.2015, is challenged in W.P.No.20826 of 2016. By an earlier order dated 20.05.2016, the licence granted to the petitioner in Form P -3, dated 03.12.2014, to possess for sale of Ammonium Nitrate from a store house exceeding 30MT, was suspended as an interim measure, as per the provisions of Section 6E of the Act read with Rule 42 of the Rules. By the same order, the petitioner was directed to show cause within 21 days as to why the licence should not be cancelled. This order of suspension as an interim measure, is challenged in W.P.No.20827 of 2016.

(2.) The learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner advanced submissions, firstly, on the correctness of the order dated 20.05.2016 and thereafter, made submissions on the correctness of the order dated 19.08.2015, rejecting the application of the petitioner for issue of licence in Form P -5. Therefore, this Court proceeds to consider the Writ Petitions in the said order.

(3.) The petitioner is a partnership firm, which was established in the year 2008 and engaged in the business of trade in Ammonium Nitrate. The petitioner has been sourcing the goods indigenously and also importing the same on payment of appropriate duties of customs. The petitioner would state that the goods are mostly sold to the buyers, who are basically engaged in agricultural operation/activities. The petitioner found that the product was available at a much competitive price abroad namely in China and from 2012, the petitioner had been importing the product through various Ports in southern India.