R. L. PODDAR Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this application under Article 226 of Constitution the petitioner challenges the validity of the order dated 17-9-1982, Annexure VIII, passed by Sri S.K.Agnihotri. District Magistrate, Kamrup. Gauhati.

(2.) BY our short order dated April 23rd, 1983, we quashed the impugned order stating that reasons would follow. We now state our reasons.

(3.) THE petitioner challenges the validity of the order of the District Magistrate above in the present writ proceeding. In the affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2, it was averred that the District Magistrate, Kamrup, wanted clarification from the Chief Controller of Explosives, Nagpur, by his express letter dated 17-5-82, Annexure I, if the provisions of sub-rule (3) of R.91 of the Explosive Rules could be invoked in the case and in reply to the letter, the Deputy Chief Controller of Explosives Calcutta, informed the District Magistrate, Kamrup, that the renewal of licence has been kept pending for non-receipt of NOC from the District Magistrate . In regard to the issue of NOC, the District Magistrate, Kamrup, informed the Chief Controller of Explosives as well as the Deputy, Chief Controller of Explosives, East Circle, Calcutta, that he was not inclined to grant NOC due to petitioner's involvement in certain cases. It was further averred that production of NOC is a pre-requisite for renewal of a licence and that non-production of the licence is a clear violation of the provision of law and the impugned order was legal and justified. The respondent No. 3 and 4, however, in their counter affidavit stated that the Department sought for NOC from the District Magistrate Kamrup, Gauhati, for renewal of the licence and as "No-objection certificate', was not issued, the petitioner's licence could not be renewed beyond 31-3-74 but the licence was valid, in view of prevision of sub-rule (3) of Rule 91 of the Explosive Rules and that no objection certificate envisaged in Rule 86 is for grant of a new licence and is not applicable in the case of renewal of licence. It was further stated that under sub-rule (3) of Rule 91 renewal application together with the original licence should reach the renewal authority at least 30 days before the date on which the validity of the licence expires and it does not prohibit submission of application at an earlier date and that the original licence was lying in the office of the Deputy Chief Controller of Explosives, East Circle, Calcutta, as stated by the petitioner. In short, it is also the case of the Respondents 3 and 4 that there was no remissness on the part of the petitioner in not producing the original licence; it is not incumbent on the part of the petitioner to apply to the District Magistrate, Kamrup, for NOC, since NOC is not a pre-requisite condition for grant of renewal of licence; and the licence stood valid, in view of sub-rule (3) of Rule 91 of the Rules. While the petition is pending before this Court, the Controller of Explosives under his letter dated 5th March, 1983, intimated also the petitioner that the licence shall under sub-rule (3) of Rule 91 of the Rules be deemed to be in force for possession and sale of the explosive described therein up to 31-3-85 or until further advice, on the basis of the petitioner's application for renewal of the licence for 1983-84 and 1984-85. A copy of the said letter was forwarded to the District Magistrate, Kamrup, Gauhati, respondent No. 2, informing him that the licence of the petitioner has not been cancelled. Since the reasons for his refusal to grant NOC for renewal of the licence could not be held appropriate, because the licensee was not required to apply to the District authority for NOC for renewal of licence.