MD. SAWOOD ALAM Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner represents a Firm in the name and style of M/S R.S. Enterprises (occupier Md. Sawood Alam) has filed this writ application to challenge the order contained in memo No. 184 dated 02.02.2016 passed by the District Magistrate, Sheikhpura withdrawing the no objection certificate (NOC) granted earlier to the Firm recommended for cancellation of his licence to deal in explosive issued under the Explosive Rules, 2008 ( for short the Rules). During pendency of this application, the licensing authority being the Chief Controller of Explosive vide order dated 3rd March, (Annexure -8 to the Interlocutory Application) consequent upon withdrawal of the NOC by the respondent - District Magistrate declared that the licence issued to the petitioner Firm under Rule 118 (1)(II) of the Rules stands cancelled. The petitioner, by filing the aforesaid Interlocutory Application, has also challenged the said order.

(2.) The writ petition asserts that on grant of NOC to deal in explosives the petitioner obtained the licence in the name of the Firm and started the business. The NOC initially was granted by the District Magistrate on 16.01.2002 upon which licence no. E/HQ/B1/22/35 licence/E63274 was issued which enabled the petitioner to carry on the business in accord with the terms of the licence and the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder. It is further stated that M/S R.S. Enterprises was a partnership Firm and the petitioner was the Managing Partner of the said firm but on 20.4.2010, the two other partners , namely, Md. Shahid Alam and Md. Wahid Alam left the Firm and he became the sole owner of the Firm. In these circumstances, he applied for renewal in the name of M/S R.S. Enterprises, which was granted to the petitioner as the Occupant of the said Firm. Unfortunately, Sheikhpura P.S. case no. 267 of 2009 was registered on 18.08.2009 under the penal provisions of the Explosive Substance Act against the petitioner in which the petitioner and other accused persons have been granted bail. It appears, at the instance of persons inimical to the petitioner, the matter was reported to the Government whereafter the Sub Divisional Officer issued letter to the petitioner to produce relevant papers. Subsequently, the District Magistrate also issued notice in response whereof he filed his show cause/reply whereafter the respondent District Magistrate vide order dated 02.02.2016 withdrew the NOC and recommended for cancellation of the licence. It is stated in doing so, no personal hearing was given to him. On the basis of the withdrawal of the NOC by the District Magistrate the licensing authority subsequently cancelled the licence vide order dated 3rd March, 2016 (Annexure -8) . Both the orders are under challenge.

(3.) Heard Mr. Y.C.Verma in support of the writ petition and Mr. S.D. Sanjay, Additional Solicitor General for the Union of India and its Officers as well as the Counsel for the State.