RAM KRISHNA PRASAD CHOUDHARY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Three dealers in fireworks have joined as petitioners in this application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. They make a grievance that the respondent authorities, by their action in suspending not renewing the petitioners' licences in Form 24 under the Explosive Rules, 1983 are unduly interfering with their right to carry on their trade and business in fireworks.

(2.) From the confused and muddled up statements made in the pleadings the discernable facts seem to be as follows: The petitioners have licences under the Arms Rule bearing Nos. 75/K, dated 11.11.1989 (belonging to petitioner No. 1), 99/K/80 (belonging to petitioner No. 2) and 85/K/67 (belonging to petitioner No 3). These licences are under old Form 'K' now Form 24 and entitled their holders to possess and sell small arms Nitro compound not exceeding the quantities stipulated in the licence. By virtue of these licences the petitioners are said to have been carrying on their trade and business in small fireworks for the past several years, The petitioners state that each one of them duly applied for the renewal of their licences, in April, 1989 and also deposited the renewal fee alongwith their applications. It appears, however, that while making the renewal applications the three petitioners deposited Rs. 75/Rs. 20 and Rs. 20 respectively by way of renewal fee which was considerably short of the statutorily required fee of Rs. 150 under Rule 177(IV) of the Explosive Rules. No action seems to have been taken on these applications for renewal which lay dormant for quite a while. In the meantime, the petitioners appear to have kept their shops open and carried on their business as they were, in fact, entitled in terms of Rule 165(3) of the Explosive Rules. In the meanwhile, it seems the respondent authorities instead of considering the individual applications for renewal of licences, were busy undertaking inspections of all the fireworks shops in order to ensure that the terms and conditions of the licence were strictly complied with and the safety measures duly observed by the fireworks shops running in the town. Shaken to by a disastrous fire on November 5/6, 1988 in one such fireworks shop situated in the densely congested Patna City area the respondent authorities seem to have embarked upon a general survey and inspection to ensure safety, security and enforcement of strict compliance with the terms and conditions of the Rules and the licences issued thereunder. Pursuant to such an inspection held by the District Arms Magistrate (the fifth respondent), a letter dated 5.10.1989 was issued by the 4th respondent, Additional District Magistrate (law and order) to a number of fireworks shop owners including the three petitioners. This letter, contained in Annexure -3, states that in course of the inspection the shop owners, including the three petitioners failed to produce that the stock registers and 'beejaks' in the absence of which it was not possible to check whether the stock of explosive in their shops was within the limit prescribed under the licence and this gave rise to the suspicion that the shop owners were stocking explosives much in excess of the prescribed limit. This letter, accordingly, directed the shop keepers, including the petitioners, to produce their stock registers and 'beejaks' in the office of respondent No. 4 without any delay in order that their applications for renewal of their licences may be taken up for consideration. As one should expect, nothing was produced by the petitioners in response to this letter.

(3.) Shortly thereafter another letter was issued to the petitioners on 16/17.10.1989 which does not quite fall in line with the contents of the earlier letter dated 5.10.1985 in line with the contents of the earlier letter dated 5.10.1989 and, gives rise to an impression that the matter relating to the renewal of the petitioners was being dealt with differently by the different authorities. The letter dated 16.10.1989 is issued by the District Arms Magistrate and the one addressed to petitioner No. 3 is under memo No. 4145 (contained Annexure -4 and Annexure -A). This simply told him that the renewal fee deposited by him was short by Rs. 130 and. he should deposit the remainder so that steps may be taken for the renewal of his licence. The letter addressed to petitioner No. 1 is dated 17.10.1989 and is under memo No. 4145 (contained in Annexure -5 and Annexure A/1). This informed him that the renewal fee deposited by him was short by Rs. 75 and he should deposit the remainder. It further stated that this petitioner was running his fireworks shop in his residential house which contravened the terms of the licence and, accordingly, directed him to remove the shop to some other place, away from the residential house. The letter addressed to petitioner No. 2 is also dated 17.10.1989 and is under memo No. 4353 contained in Annexure A/2). This alleged that on 25.9.1989 and 26.9.1989 he had obtained two licences in 'Benarai' names. It further stated that the two licences were issued without obtaining 'no objection certificate' from the District Magistrate and the licences did not mention the place where the shop would be situated, hence both these licences were in contravention of the terms of the licence (sic). He was, accordingly, directed to show cause within 3 days as to why his licences may not be cancelled. It is to be noted, however, that this letter related to two licences obtained by petitioner No. 2 on 25.9.1989 and 26.9.1989 and no mention was made about his earlier licence No. 99K/80, the renewal application in relation to which was pending before the authorities since April, 1989. In response to these letters the three petitioners duly deposited the balance of their renewal fees on 17.10.1989 vide chalan Nos. 45, 46 and 47. Finally letter dated 24.10.1989 was issued, once again, by Additional District Magistrate (Law and Order). This letter, in furtherance of the earlier letter dated 5.10.1989, stated that the petitioners, not having produced their stock registers and 'beejaks' violated clause 5 of their licence. Moreover, they were running their shops without their licences having been renewed for the year 1989 -90. This allegedly contravened Rule 155(2)(b) of the Explosive Rules. The petitioners' licences were, accordingly, put under suspension forthwith and they were further required to show cause within 3 days as to why their licences may not be cancelled. This notice dated 24.10.1989 is said to have been received by the petitioners on 27.10.1989 after the expiry of the three days period to submit their show cause. On the same day their shops are said to have been sealed by the authorities before the petitioners had any opportunity to submit their show cause.