GUNDEPALLI MEENACHARYULU @ ABBANNA Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is a case where the order dated 26.10.2015 of the 3rd respondent-primary authority as confirmed by the 2nd respondent-appellate authority is challenged before this Court. The impugned order has been made in exercise of the powers conferred under the Explosive Act, 1884 (for short, "the Act") read with Rule 118 of the Explosive Rules, 2008 (for short, "the Rules"). As can be seen from the impugned order, the explosive license for manufacturing of fire crackers which was granted to the petitioner was cancelled on 19.10.2015. A fire accident was occurred on 19.10.2015 at about 7.00 a.m. at the outskirts of Jaggammagaripet, H/o. Hussanpuram Village, Samalkot Mandal East Godavari District. As per the impugned order, the accident has occurred on account of the negligence of the petitioner whose license unit for manufacturing of fire crackers is situated in Sy.No.64/4 of Jaggammagaripeta Village and the accident had occurred at about 300 meters faraway from the place where the petitioner was carrying on the business of manufacture of the fire crackers without license. The building at which the accident had occurred is unlicensed premises and the petitioner had failed to take necessary permission for manufacturing of the fire crackers. The case of the petitioner is that while the impugned order has been made on 26.10.2015, the primary authority failed to issue notice and cause enquiry and failed to appreciate that the premises at which the fire accident took place is no way concerned with the petitioner's premises which is admittedly situated in and around 300 meters away. The petitioner had completely denied any involvement or any connection with the fire accident took place. It is also the contention of the petitioner that the fire accident has occurred in Sy.No.271 of Bheemavaram Village, Samalkota Mandal and which is outside the purview of the Gram Panchayat in which the petitioner's manufacturing unit is situated. The petitioner would also contend that the appellate authority failed to consider the appeal grounds and the fact that the license was admittedly valid till 31.3.2016 and for no fault of his he has been deprived of his livelihood.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner would reiterate the contentions raised in the writ petition.

(3.) A perusal of the counter affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent discloses that it is nothing but reiteration of the contentions recorded in the impugned order apart from making a reference to the Rules. A further recording in the counter-affidavit is that for the premises situated in Sy.No.271, the petitioner did not comply and obtain any license for manufacture of the fire crackers and a reference is made to the enquiry alleged to have been conducted by the Tahsildar, Samalkota. In those circumstances, the 2nd respondent justifies that the order has been made after following the due process. However, one aspect of the matter is clear that in para No.8 of the counter-affidavit the respondents had categorically stated that under Rule 118(5)(i) of the Rules notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-Rule (1) an opportunity of being heard may not be given to the holder of license before his license is suspended or cancelled.