BANASKANTHA DISTRICT FIRE WORKS ASSISTANT Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE BANASKANTHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is an association of businessmen selling fire works. The pe- titioner challenges the legality and vali- dity of the order Annexure-H dated September 19/23 1987 passed by the District Magistrate Palanpur. By this order the petitioners application for re- renewal of licence for selling fire crack- ers in the bazar area has been rejected on the ground that the place in respect of which licence is applied for is situa- ted in a thickly populated locality; hence if the licence is granted in respect of those premises it would damage the public interest. It is also stated that the premises in question are not in ac- cordance with the provisions of Rule 135 of the Explosives Rules 1983

(2.) The petition is not maintainable because against the impugned order an appeal is provided for under the rele- vant provisions of the Indian Explo- sives Act 1884 and the Rules. But the learned counsel for the petitioner insis- ted that the petition be heard by this Court as the petitioners do not know which is the appellate authority and therefore there would not be any alter native efficacious remedy. This ground cannot be accepted as the petitioners could have and should have enquired from the District Magistrate or from other relevant Government office as to where the appeal lies. Therefore on the ground that there is alternative efficacious remedy the petition is re- quired to be rejected. However other contentions raised by the petitioner may also be examined.

(3.) When the application for renewal of the licence has been rejected by the respondent-District Magistrate it should also be borne in mind that alternative place (i.e. in school compound) has been offered where the business of selling fire crackers may be carried on by members of the petitioner-association. In view of this alternative arrangement at the most the members of the petitioner asso- ciation may suffer some hardship and inconvenience but they would not be deprived of an opportunity to carry on the business in fire crackers. When safety of the people at large and pub- lic property is at stake and if the safety measures require that some hardship be undergone by those who want to deal in dangerous substances it can never be said that the decision of the respondent- authority is in any way arbitrary or un- reasonable.