AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Suraj Govindaraj, J
The petitioners are before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:
i. Issue writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction directing the respondents 3-6 not to interfere with the sale of fire crackers by the petitioners and permit them to carry on their trade as per the terms and conditions mentioned in the license issued by respondent No.2 vide Annexure A and A-1 respectively in the interest of justice and equity.
ii. Issue a appropriate direction directing the Respondent 3-5 to open the lock and permit the petitioners to carry on sale of fire crackers in the interest of justice and equity.
iii. Pass any other appropriate order or direction as this Honorable Court deems fit under the facts and circumstances of the case including the awarding of costs in the interest of justice and equity.
The grievance of the petitioners is though the petitioners have a valid Firecracker licence issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District, Bangalore and that the petitioners have been carrying on business in terms of the said licence, the premises of the petitioners have been seized, locked, denying the petitioners an opportunity to conduct their lawful business. It is in that background that the petitioners are before this Court seeking for the aforesaid reliefs.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that if there is any other obligation required to be fulfilled by the petitioners, the petitioners will so fulfill such obligations.
Sri.Shanthi Bhushan, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India has filed a memo dated 10.11.2023 enclosing an inspection report of the premises of the petitioners dated 8.11.2023 indicating certain non-compliances. He submits that if those compliances are made and if the petitioners were to restrict the sale to vend 600 kgs of firecrackers, then respondent No.7 will have no objections for the said business to be carried on, it is for the Deputy Commissioner to take a decision.
Learned AGA submits that insofar as the licence is concerned, the validity or otherwise has not been examined as such, it would also be examined. If the petitioners were to comply with the inspection report, he would be so permitted to carry on the business in terms of the order passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of M/s Cracker Bazaar -vs- Commissioner of Police and others NC:2023:KHC:38666 WP. No.23397/2023 and connected matters.
In that view of the matter, I pass the following:
ORDER
i. The petitioners in this petition shall conduct their respective businesses strictly in consonance with the observations made in the inspection report dated 8.11.2023.
ii. Only after such corrective measures are implemented as is indicated in the inspection report, the same shall be informed to the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner of Police by the petitioners.
iii. Any deviation from the observations made or if necessary corrective measures are not undertaken by the petitioners, they would become open for suspension of the business, in accordance with the law.
iv. In the light of the aforesaid directions, the premises that are locked shall be unlocked forthwith and the petitioners be directed to implement those precautionary measures, as observed in the inspection report.
v. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the compliance will be made by the end of day tomorrow i.e. 10.11.2023.
vi. Sri.Shanthi Bhushan, learned DSCI submits that since the quantity of firecrackers is less than 600 kgs, there will be no requirement for respondent No.7 to verify the compliance of the Explosive Rules and it will be left for the Deputy Commissioner. Hence, the Deputy Commissioner is directed to inspect and take necessary action if compliances are made by the end of the day tomorrow, i.e. 11.11.2023.
vii. To enable compliance, the respondents are directed to unlock the premises of the petitioners. It is however made clear that the petitioners shall not carry on its business until so permitted by the Deputy Commissioner.
In view of there being an issue raised as regards the validity of the licence, in future the Deputy Commissioner is directed to sign each and every page of the licence if it is physically signed or e-sign the said licence.
In the event of respondent No.2 disputing the issuance of licence, the original of the licence along with admitted signature of Sri.K.Srinivas, Deputy Commissioner and District Magistrate, Bangalore District, Bangalore, would be sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for verification as to whether the said signature is that of the Deputy Commissioner or not and if the signature is found to be as that of the Deputy Commissioner after denial, then the Chief Secretary to take necessary disciplinary action.
With the above observations, the writ petition stands disposed.