Disposed¶49

Sri. B Veeranna v. Government of India

Karnataka HC12 Sept 2025WP/2263/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Firecrackers license; renewal vs fresh license; suspension order 22.11.2018; interim suspension till further notice; Form LE-5; Explosives Rules 2008; Deputy Chief Controller of Explosives; Government of India; Hosapete Town Municipality alternative premises; prior approval suitability of premises; penal action portal renewal; online application reinstatement; Articles 226 and 227; mandamus; Karnataka HC; WP 2263 of 2024; GM-RES.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of, reserving liberty to the petitioner to apply online for a fresh license with a certified copy of the order, and calling upon the respondent to consider the application expeditiously in accordance with the prescribed procedure. ¶49

Sri. B Veeranna Vs Government of India — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶49

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner must apply for a fresh license or for renewal of the license suspended vide order dated 22.11.2018. +1 more

¶31

Court's answer

The statutory provisions and the provisions under the Rules must prevail and cannot be ignored only because of certain observations made while suspending the license.

¶43

Ratio / Principle

A license requires prior approval based on the suitability of the premises; therefore, the petitioner must apply for issuance of a license (i.e., a fresh application) rather than seek renewal.

¶47

Key takeaways

In the circumstances of the suspension, the respondent must consider the petitioner's request for a fresh license expeditiously, if such an application is filed online with the details of this order.ratio¶47

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka HC (Bengaluru), B M Shyam Prasad J., disposed W.P. No. 2263 of 2024 (GM-RES) filed under Articles 226 & 227 seeking mandamus to consider a renewal request dated 4.11.2023 (Annexure-E) for a Firecrackers License in Form–LE-5 under the Explosives Rules, 2008. The license had been suspended on 22.11.2018 as an interim measure after the petitioner surrendered his Hosapete Town Municipality-allotted shop; the Municipality has since allotted alternative premises. Holding that statutory provisions and the Explosives Rules must prevail over mere observations in the suspension order, and that a license requires prior approval based on suitability of premises, the Court held the petitioner must apply afresh for issuance of a license rather than renewal, and directed the Deputy Chief Controller of Explosives to consider such an online application, filed with a certified copy of the order, expeditiously per the prescribed procedure.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:36246 WP No. 2263 of 2024

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO.2263 OF 2024 (GM-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI. B. VEERANNA,

¶10

S/O SHARANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS

¶11

Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

OCC: BUSINESS, OLD 7^TH , NEW WARD, D NO.28, MAIN BAZAAR, HOSPETE- VIJAYANAGARA – 583 201 (BY SRI. DALWAI VENKATESH, ADVOCATE)

¶13

…PETITIONER

¶14

AND:

¶15

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY DEPUTY CHIEF CONTROLLER OF EXPLOSIVES SECOND FLOOR, CITY CENTRE

¶16

¶17

NC: 2025:KHC:36246 WP No. 2263 of 2024

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

OPP ROOPA HOTEL, BALMELLA ROAD,

¶20

MANGALORE – 575 001

¶21

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI. A CHANDRACHUD, CGSC)

¶22

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO a) ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT TO CONSIDER THE REQUEST FOR RENEWAL DATED 4.11.2023 BY THE RESPONDENT PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-E, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY; b) GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEFS AS THIS HON’BLE COURT DEEMS FIT UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶23

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

¶25

¶26

NC: 2025:KHC:36246 WP No. 2263 of 2024

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

ORAL ORDER

¶29

The petitioner seeks direction to the respondent to consider his request for renewal of Firecrackers

¶30

License [ License ] granted in Form–LE-5 under the Explosives Rules, 2008. It is not in contest that the petitioner was issued with this license when he was in possession of a shop allotted by the Hosapete Town Municipality; that the petitioner has surrendered the possession of the shop because of the Municipality’s proposal to construct a new building, and that the petitioner is now allotted an alternative premises by the Municipality.

¶31

The question for consideration in the light of the rival submissions is whether the petitioner must apply for a fresh license or for renewal of the license suspended vide an order dated 22.11.2018 . The respondent has suspended the license stipulating that it is as an interim measure with immediate effect

¶32

¶33

NC: 2025:KHC:36246 WP No. 2263 of 2024

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

till further notice. Sri. Dalwai Venkatesh, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that

¶36

[i] the respondent is insisting upon the petitioner to apply for a fresh license when in fact the license is only temporarily suspended until further orders and that the petitioner, with the Municipality allotting another premise, is entitled to apply online for reinstatement of the license,

¶37

[ii] the petitioner is unable to apply for renewal because the portal indicates that he cannot seek renewal because the suspension is a penal action, and

¶38

[iii] the circumstances under which the license is suspended cannot be termed a penal action .

¶39

¶40

NC: 2025:KHC:36246 WP No. 2263 of 2024

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

Sri. A. Chandrachud, the learned Central Government Standing Counsel [CGSC] for the respondent, does not dispute the circumstance in which the petitioner's license is suspended, or that the petitioner is entitled to make a fresh application for issuance of a license, but contends that the petitioner cannot seek for renewal of the license because the licence is suspended as the petitioner had not informed the respondent about the surrender of the premises. The CGSC canvasses that the respondent will have to ensure as a matter of prior approval that the sale of crackers would be permitted in the current premises.

¶43

This Court must emphasize that undoubtedly the statutory provisions and the provisions under the Rules must prevail and these cannot be ignored only because of certain observations while suspending the license. Significantly, and beyond dispute, for a license there

¶44

¶45

NC: 2025:KHC:36246 WP No. 2263 of 2024

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

must be a prior approval based on the suitability of the premises, and therefore, this Court is of the view that the petitioner must apply for issuance of a license. However, in the circumstances in which the license is suspended, this Court must call upon the respondent to consider the petitioner’s request for a fresh license expeditiously, if such an application is filed online with the details of this order.

¶48

ORDER

¶49

The petition stands disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioner to apply online for a fresh license with a certified copy of this order calling upon the respondent to consider the same expeditiously in accordance with the procedure prescribed.

¶50

SD/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

¶51

¶52

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 3

Sri. B Veeranna v. Government of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. B Veeranna v. Government of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Shiradi Sai Provision Stores Vs State of Karnataka

Habil Musten Jiruwala Vs Union of India

M/S Priya Veg Sit Extension, Vs the Punjab National Bank

M/S G a D Developers Vs M Asadulla Khan

H G Dinesh Vs the State of Karnataka

Karnataka State Cricket Association Vs Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Ltd.