ORDER
1. The petitioner applied for a licence, to possess and sell explosives by establishing a Magazine for the storage of explosives, to the third respondent who is the competent authority for grant of such licence. It is averred in the affidavit filed in support of the above Writ Petition that the petitioner had purchased land in Sy. Nos. 756 to 766 of Ankireddipally village, Keesara Mandal, Rangareddy District. The petitioner hadnever carried on the business in explosive earlier and there has been no complaint against the petitioner under the Explosives Act, 1984 or under the Explosives Substances Act, 1988. However, the petitioner's brother Sri A. Indrasena Reddy has been carrying on business in explosives under the name and style of M/s. Vijaya Associates which was a proprietory concern and that the petitioner has nothing to do with the aforesaid business. It appears that a case is pending against the petitioner's brother under the Explosives Act and on that ground the Superintendent of Police, Ranga Reddy District -- 2nd respondent herein, submitted a report to the 1st respondent who by his letter No. F5/6177/-95 dated 28-6-1996 informed the petitioner that his request for grant of 'no objection certificate' for possession of explosive magazine in Sy. Nos. 756 to 767 of Ankireddypalli village has not been considered. It is this order that is assailed by the petitioner in the above Writ Petition.
2. Counter-affidavit has been filed by Respondent No, 2 wherein it is stated that the application of the petitioner was forwarded to the 2nd respondent for causing enquiries and that it came to the knowledge of the 2nd respondent that the petitioner's brother and father have already come in for adverse notice for indulging in illegal selling of explosives to unauthorised persons by falsifying records in contravention of the Explosives rules and that a case has been registered against them in Medak district which is pending. It is further stated in the said counter that the petitioner is the brother of A. Indrasena Reddy and that the petitioner has intended to run the business under the name and style of M/s. Vijaya Associates and that the 2nd respondent during his enquiry has kept in mind the security of public as well as public safety and not recommended the case of the petitioner for grant of 'no objection certificate.'
3. The grant of licence which has been applied for by the petitioner is governed by the Explosive Rules, 1983 (for short 'the rules'). The 3rd respondent herein vis., the Chief Controller of Explosives, Government of India is the competent authority for grantof such a licence. The procedure for consideration of the application by the licencing authority is prescribed in Rule 156 and for convenience sake the same is extracted here-inbelow for ready reference :
156. Procedure to be observed before a licence in Form 20, 21 or 22 is granted :
(3) After receiving correct documents as per requirements of these rules, the licensing authority shall refer the application to--
(i) the district authority concerned together with a description of enquiries to be carried out, a draft licence and a statement-in Form 18 showing the distance which he considers should be kept clear in and around the factory, magazine or store house;
(ii) any other authority for such enquiry asdeemed necessary.
(4) Upon receipt of the said application the district authority shall forthwith cause notice to be published of such application and of the time and place at which he will be prepared to hear it, and calling upon any person objecting to the establishment of the factory or magazine or store house on the proposed site to give notice of such objection to him and to the applicant of not less than seven clear days before the day fixed for hearing the application together with his name, address and calling and a short statement of the grounds of his objections. The day of hearing the application shall be a day following as soon as practicable, after the expiration of the period of one month referred to in sub-rule (6).
(5) Where the site of the proposed factory or magazine lies within 1.5 km of the limits of the jurisdiction of any town planning municipal authority or port authority, the applicant shall prepare, for service on such authority, a notice of the application and of the said day of hearing.
(6) The notice under sub-rule (4) shall be published and the notice under sub-rule (5) served, at the expense of the applicant by the district authority not less than one month before the said day of hearing.
(7) On the day fixed for the hearing or anyday to which such hearing may be adjourned from time to time, the district authority shall hear any objection preferred in accordance with sub-rule (4) and by any authority referred to in sub-rule (5) and shall make such enquiry as he may deem necessary.
(8) On completion of the enquiry the district authority shall forward the application, statement and plans to the licensing authority together with a report of the procedure followed by him and whether he has any objection to the applicant receiving a licence at the site proposed.
(9) The district authority shall complete his enquiry under sub-rules (4) to (7) and forward the report to the licensing authority as expeditiously as possible but not later than six months of the date of the reference made by the licensing authority.
(10) If the district authority objects to the grant of the licence on any of the grounds specified in sub-rule (3), no licence shall be granted by the licensing authority except with the sanction of the Central Government.
4. A perusal of the above rule 156 would show that after receiving the documents, the licensing authority is to refer the application to the District authority concerned or to any other authority for such enquiry as may be deemed necessary. The district authority under sub-rule (10) of Rule 156 is empowered to object for the grant of licence on any of the grounds specified in sub-rule (3).
5. Under sub-rule (3), the District authority has to consider the suitability of the land on which the factory, magazine or storehouse to be constructed and the distances which in the opinion of the district authority should be kept clear in and around the same. Under sub-rule (4), the district authority is required to publish a show cause notice calling upon any person objecting to the, establishment of the factory or magazine or store-house on the proposed site which implies that if there arc any objections from any person whomsoever, the same would require to be heard. The objections would, however, have to be regarding the establishment of thefactory or magazine or store-house on the proposed site and if the proposed factory or magazine lies within 1.5 kms of the limits of the jurisdiction of any Town Planning, Municipal authority or port authority, the applicant is required to prepare, for service on such authority, a notice of the application and of the date of hearing as prescribed under sub-rule (5). Under sub-rule (7), the district authority shall hear any objections preferred under sub-rules (4) and (5) and on completion of such enquiry, sub-rule (8) envisages that the district authority shall forward the application, statement and plans to the licensing authority together with a report of the procedure followed by him and whether he has any objections to the applicant receiving a licence at the site proposed. The sub-rule(8) thus makes it clear that the district authority is required to state whether it has any objection, to the applicant receiving a licence in relation to the site proposed. The emphasis in sub-rule (8) to the objection is with regard to the site. In fact the underlying object in sub-rule (3) with regard to the enquiry by the district authority r/w sub-rules (4) and (5) is with regard to objections, if any, in relation to the proposed site.
6. A perusal of the impugned Memo dated 28-6-1996, however, shows that the request for grant of 'no-objection certificate' has been rejected without assigning any reasons though in the impugned Memo, the letter dated 1-3-1996 of the Superintendent of Police -- Respondent No. 2 has been cited at Item 2. The ground of rejection, therefore, appears to be, as stated in the counter-affidavit of the 2nd respondent that the pendency of case against the petitioner's brother and father under the Explosives Act. It is significant to note that the Collector i.e., the District authority has not stated anything about the suitability of the land or the requirements to be kept in mind with regard to the Magazine for which the licence has been applied or whether any objections have been received from the public or anyone else under sub-rule (4) or from Town Planning or Municipal authorities under sub-rule (5).
7. To my mind, the District authorityconcerned has essentially to consider and conduct enquiries with regard to the land (site on which the proposed magazine is to be constructed) and the areas that should be kept clear in and around the factory, magazine or store-house for which the licence has been applied for. The objections by the District authority have to be in relation to the criteria enumerated sub-rule (3) after calling for objections under sub-rules (4) and (5) of Rule 156. That essential element has not been Kept in view by the District authority and the impugned Memo therefore is one without due application of mind. The impugned Memo refusing to grant 'no-objection certificate' does not even remotely refer to the enquiries if any made pursuant to any objections received under sub-rules (4) and (5) of Rule 156. I am therefore of the view that the impugned order in Memo dated 28-6-1996 is vitiated on the ground of non-application of mind and contrary to requirements prescribed in sub-rule (8) of Rule 156 as to the nature of enquiries to be carried out by the District authority. The 1st respondent has thereby failed to conduct an enquiry as required by the rules and in particular sub-rules (4) and (S) of Rule 156. The impugned Memo dated 28-6-1996 is therefore held to be arbitrary and is accordingly set aside.
8. Accordingly, the District Collector is directed to conduct enquiry as contemplated under sub-rules (4) and (5) and to pass appropriate orders after completion of the enquiry as envisaged in sub-rule (8) of Rule 156. Time allotted for the said purpose is six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
9. It must, however, be stated that the learned Government Pleader for Home relied upon the averments made in the counter-affidavit and urged that the petitioner is not entitled to grant of the licence applied for and that the security of public as well as public safety has to be kept in mind. The contention is not without merit. The police authorities would fall under the category 'any other authority' under sub-clause (ii) of sub-rule (3). As already noticed above, the licensing authority is empowered to refer the application to the district authority under sub-clause (1) and to any other, authority under sub-clause (ii) of sub-rule (3). The district authority as already held above, is required to conduct enquiry with respect to the suitability of the site after considering the objections from any person whomsoever and the Municipal or Town Planning authority under sub-rules (4) and (5) respectively. The importance of the report of the police authority falling under the category of 'any other authority' under sub-clause (ii) is a matter for consideration by the licensing authority and not for the district authority who at best can refer such a report of police authority to the licensing authority. It must therefore be held that any objections the police authorities may have for the grant of license applied for by the petitioner would be a matter for consideration by the licensing authority.
10. This Writ Petition is accordingly allowed setting aside the impugned order in Memo dated 28-6-1996 and directing enquiry within a period of six-months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order in accordance with law and thereafter, it would be open to the licensing authority -- Respondent No. 3 herein to consider the grant of licence applied for by the petitioner in accordance with law. No costs.
11. Petition allowed.