Dismissed

M/s. Lakshmi and Company, v. The District Collector and District Magistrate

Telangana HC9 Sept 2024WP/29418/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging orders imposing stop-work directions on explosives licenses due to a lapsed No Objection Certificate. Court dismissed withdrawal challenge, directing petitioner to file a fresh application for license renewal.

What did the court decide?

WP dismissed; petitioner directed to file fresh application for license renewal; if rejected, respondents to pass reasoned order.

M/s. Lakshmi and Company, Vs The District Collector… — Specific Performance | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

MONDAY ,THE NINTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 29418 OF 2009

¶6

Between:

¶7

M/s. Lakshmi AND Company,, premises bearing No.1O-92, Near S.T.D. Tower, lndira Marg, Huzurabad, Karimnagar District, rep. by A. Vijay Kumar.

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

The District Collector and District Magistrate,, Karimnagar, Karimnagar District.

¶11

The Deputy Chief Controller of Explosives,, Kendriya Sadan, Sultan Bazar, Koti, Hyderabad.

¶12

The Chief Controller of Explosives,, Petroleum and Explosives Safety Organisation (PESO), A-Block, 5th Floor, CGO Complex, Seminary Hills, Nagpur, State of Maharshtra.

¶13

...RESPONDENTS

¶14

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lMia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the proceedings dt. 01.12.2009 in proceed ings No. E/S C/AP/22 I 266 I E67 1 7 and ESC/AP/2 I l264lES7 24 issued by the 2nd respondent insofar as rt relates to intimating the petitioner to stop the operationof magazines covered by two licenses on the ground that No objeclion Certificate is not revived by the District Magistrate and furtlpr the proceedings dt01.12.2OO4 in C.No.9400/03 and consequential letter No.C119400/2003, dt. 07.12.2004 addressed to the 3rd respondent by the l st respondent as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural^justice and consequently to direct the respondents to permit the^petitioner to carry on business in explosives

¶15

t.A. 10F P. : 38067 0F 2009 )

¶16

Petition under section^{'151CPC prayingthat in the circumstances stated in} the affidavit filed^{in support of the petition, the High courtmaybe pleased to} suspend the^{operationof the proceedingsdt._01.12.2009 in proceedings} No.EtSClRplZZ ti6OlEO717^{and ESC1APl21t264/E6724issued by the 2nd} respondent,^{pendingdisposal of the writ petition}

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioner^{: SRl. A PRABHAKAR RAO}

¶18

Counsel forthe^{Respondents: Rl GP FOR REVENUE}

¶19

Counsel for the^{Respondent : R2 AND R3 ASSISTANTSoLlclToR GENERAL} OF INDIA

¶20

Counsel for the Respondents:^{8549/NIMMANAGOTI SRINIVAS}

¶21

The Court made the^{following: ORDER}

¶22

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY

¶23

WRIT PETITION NO.29418 of 2OO9

¶24

ORDER:

¶25

This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief:

¶26

"...,to issue an appropiate Luit or order or^{directionmore} partiatlarlg one in the noture of writ of mandamus declaing the proceedings dt 01.12.2009 in proceedings No.E/ SC/ AP/ 22/ 266/ 86717 and ESC/ AP/ 21/ 264/^E6724 issued bV the 2"d respondent insofor as il relates to intimating^the petitioner to stop the operatiotl of magazines couered bA tu)o licenses on the ground that No objection Cerlifmte is not^reutued bg tlle Distict Magistrote and funher the^proceedings dt 01.12.2004 in C.No.94Oo/03 and conseqtential Lelter No.Cl/ 9400/ 2003 dt 07.12.2004 addressed to the 3'd^respondent bg tlrc l't respondent as illegal, arbitrary and uiolatitE of^principles of natural justice and conseque-ntlg to direct the^{respondentsto} pennit the petitioner to carry on busrne.ss in explosiues....'

¶27

Considered the submissions of the learned counsel^{for the}

¶28

respective parties and perused the record.

¶29

The petitioner herein is a company carrying on its business in explosives in^{the name and style of} M/s.^{L^axmi&} Company at Huzurabad and has^submitted an^application before the respondents for^{issuance of license to carry} on^the business of storage and^{sale of explosives. The case} of^the petitioner is that respondent No.3 has addressed a letter dated 19.09.2003 to respondent^No. I^calling objections, if any for establishment of magazine and^{for grantof} license in^its favour.

It is the further case of the petitioner that on being satisfied with the compliance of all the requirements, the^respondents have considered for issuance of explosive license^{in its favourfor} establishment of proposed magazine in Sy.Nos.7S/A and⁷³ situated at Kothapalli village, Huzurabad Mandal,^Karimnagar District and on due verification, respondent No.t has^issued license in its favour on 12.O4.2OO5. It is the further case of the petitioner that, he made an application in the year 2O07 seeking renewal of license and respondent No.2 vide^proceedings dated 2a.O5.2OO7 renewed tlte license up to 31.O3.2OO9. It is^the further case of the petitioner that thereafter,^{respondentNo.3} addressed a letter vide l€tter No.C 1/9700/ 2O03,^dated 24.O5.2OO7 intimating that it has received^{proceedingsdated} OI.l2.2OO4 issued by respondent No.l intimating^{that the NOC} issued in its favour on O9.09.2O04 was cancelled and^calledfor explanation as to why the license issued in its^{favourshould not} be cancelled and on receipt of the said letter, it has submitted explanation dated 14.06.2O07. It is the further^case of^the petitioner that in view of the said explanation, respondent No.3 addressed a letter, dated 13.O7.20O9 to respondent^{No.1 for} reconsideration of cancellation of the NOC and thereafter, respondent No.2 issued proceedings dated Ol.12.2OO9

¶34

¶35

(

¶36

intimating to stop the operation of magazines covered by the licenses on the ground that the NOC issued in its favour is not revived by the District Magistrate.

¶37

Mr. A.Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in compliance with the order, dated 3l.l2.2}Og passed by this Court, the respondents have considered the application of the petitioner and renewed the license and therefore, the petitioner is continuing his business.

¶38

Ms. NVR Rajya L,akshmi, learned counsel representing Sri Gadi Praveen Kumar, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3, submitted that as the respondents have renewed the liccnse of the petitioner in terms of the order, dated 31.12.2O09 passed b,y this Court, the petitioner has to make a fresh application seeking renewal of the license for further period.

¶39

In view of the above submissions, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of this writ petirion directing the petitioner to make a fresh application seeking renewal of the license for further period and on filing such application, the respondents are directed to consider the same. If the petitioner is not entitled for renewal of the license, the respondents are

¶40

I I

¶41

¶42

directed to pass reasoned order and communicate the said decision thereon to the^petitioner.

¶43

With the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed

¶44

of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶45

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.

¶46

SD/. P. PADMANABH^{A REDDY} ASSISTANT GISTRAR

//TRUE^COPY//

SEC N OFFICER

To,

,1 . The District Collector and District Magistrate,, Karimnagar,^Karimnagar District.

¶51

The Deputy^{ChiefController of Explosives" Kendriya Sadan' Sultan Bazar'} Koti, Hyderabad.

¶52

The chief^{controller of Explosives,, Petroleum and Explosives Safety.,} " oi"r""iliii"n tiesol, A-ii6;i, sti'roor, cGo complex' seminary^Hills' t,ia"-qpur. State^{of Maharshtra.}

¶53

4 One CC to^{SRl.A PRABHAKARRAO Advocate IOPUC]}

¶54

5, One CC^{to SRl.ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERALOF INDIAAdvocate} loPUCl

¶55

One CC^{to SRl.8549/NIMMANAGOTI SRINIVAS Advocate [OPUC]}

¶56

7 ONE SPARE^COPY

¶57

TWO CD^COPIES

Yt GSA KKS

HIGH COURT

DATED:0910912024

ORDER

WP.No.29418 of 2009

1 H E s 14 Ie
(
o
O
0 0 JAt'l 2025 i
C';
o:!sparcufr()

¶65

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION

¶66

WITHOUT COSTS

¶67

q ,o?4
W
i;tGt

M/s. Lakshmi and Company, v. The District Collector and District Magistrate

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Lakshmi and Company, v. The District Collector and District Magistrate

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Thangeda Suramma, Vs The State of Telangana

Smt.Ranaveni Vanitha Vs Sri. Ramakrishna

Kotagiri Usha Rani Vs Sri. Kasi Reddy

Sultan Ul Uloom Education Society and 2 others Vs The Pharmacy Council of India,and another

M/ s Skr Constructions Vs The State of Telangana

Fakruddin M.Khambaty Vs Union of India., rep.by its Secretary,Ministry of Railways