JABEDA BEGUM Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. S. Kataki, learned counsel for the writ petitioner. I have also heard Mr. D. Saikia, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. S. Bora, learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 1 and 2. Mrs. D.D. Barman, learned Government Advocate, Assam, has appeared for the respondent no. 3.

(2.) The writ petitioner is a businessman by profession and runs a shop wherein, fire crackers are sold. For carrying on with his aforesaid business, the petitioner has obtained a trade license from the Guwahati Municipal Corporation (GMC), Guwahati. The present petition has been filed being aggrieved by the order dated 03.07.2019 issued by the Deputy Commissioner/South Zone, GMC, directing the petitioner to obtain an "NOC" from the Director of Fire Services, Government of Assam and produce the same within seven days, failing which, his trade license bearing no. 179610 dated 17.08.2015 would be cancelled. As an interim measure, the petitioner was restrained from selling and purchasing fire crackers so as to prevent any possible disaster.

(3.) Mr. Kataki, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that his client has obtained "NOC" from the competent authority under Rule 102 of the Explosive Rules, 2008 and as such, there was no further necessity to obtain another NOC from the Director of Fire Services, Assam. Referring to the explosive license issued to the petitioner by the Deputy Chief Controller of Explosive. Mr. Kataki has submitted that no further license or NOC, save and except, the trade license from the GMC authority was required for selling and purchasing fire crackers. It is also the submis-sion of the learned counsel for the writ petiti-oner that as per section 180 of the GMC Act, 1971, the GMC is authorized to issue trade license taking note of the nature of the trade or business carried out by the applicant. Contending that the Act of 1971 does not confer any authority upon the GMC to insist on NOC from the Director, Fire Services, Mr. Kataki has argued that the impugned order dated 03.07.2019 is illegal and therefore, liable to be set aside by this Court.