NOC For Firecracker Shop Can’t Be Cancelled Merely Because It’s In Populated Area : Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has held that no objection certificate granted to a firecracker shop cannot be cancelled merely because it is in a thickly populated area. Unless there is violation of the India Explosives Act, 1884 and Rules thereunder, NOC cannot be cancelled or revoked.

Reliance was placed on earlier decisions of the Allahabad High Court wherein the Court had held that “increase of population in the area wherein there is an apprehension safety of public life and property are not relevant, as provided under the Act and Rules, the NOC cannot be denied or cancelled.” Accordingly, Justice Piyush Agrawal following the law laid down by the Court, directed reinstatement of the license of the petitioner.

Factual Background:

Petitioner obtained a ‘No Objection Certificate’ for selling fireworks, crackers and sparkler, under Rule 103 of the India Explosives Act, 1884. Petitioner’s license was renewed from time to time. However, in 2017, he was issued a show cause notice to shift his present shop to an isolated open and safe place, away from the market located in a densely populate area. In 2019, the NOC granted to the petitioner was cancelled. Appeals filed by the petitioner before the Commissioner, Saharanpur and Chief Controller of Explosives, Nagpur were dismissed.

Counsel for petitioner contended that the license was granted and renewed after due verification. The cancellation of NOC was illegal and arbitrary in nature. Further, it was contended that the Act did not contain any provision which authorized cancellation of NOC if the firecracker shop is in a densely populated area.

It was also contended that the reliance placed by respondent on the decision of the Supreme Court in Arjun Gopal and others Vs. Union of India and others is misplace. The said judgment is only applicable to Delhi and National Capital Region.

Defending the cancellation order, counsel for respondent argued that the shop of the petitioner was situated in a densely populated area and was dangerous for the peace and safety of the society.

High Court Verdict:

The Court observed that the there was no provision in the Act or Rules thereunder for cancellation of NOC of a firecracker shop in a densely populated area. The Court noted that respondent was placing reliance only on the guidelines by referring Paragraph XIX (e) clause which prohibits for storage and sake of fireworks in densely populated area.

The Court further observed that the guidelines were only framed for temporary licenses. There was no provision in the Act which empowered the authorities to make any guidelines with respect to permanent licenses.

Reliance was placed on Shabi Ali Vs. State of U.P. and Ors, wherein the Allahabad High Court held

“Before the District Magistrate Varanasi the petitioner has placed all the relevant provisions of law and therefore has prayed that the ground on which the "NOC" has been cancelled are not punishable under the statute. According to the petitioner the shop in question satisfies the requirement of Rule 83 and in particular clause (4)(a) of Rule 83 and remaining conditions of Rule 83 are also not attracted in the case of the petitioner. However, on extraneous consideration, increase in population in area and apprehension of loss to public life and property, which are not relevant circumstances so as provided under Rule 2008, the "NOC" could not have been denied to the petitioner specially when all other conditions under the Act 1884 and Rules 2008 are satisfied.”

Since the law laid down had not been modified or set aside by Apex Court, the Court directed the reinstatement of license with a cost of Rs. 10,000 in favour of the petitioner.

Case Title: Manoj Mittal v. Union Of India And 4 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 434 [WRIT - C No. - 4042 of 2021]

Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 434

Counsel for Petitioner: Archi Agarwal

Click Here To Read/Download Order