Public Safety Overrides Business Longevity In Explosives Licensing: Andhra Pradesh HC

Public safety assessments under the Explosives Rules, 2008 carry a higher threshold than mere population density concerns, allowing authorities to cancel licenses even without a history of accidents. The High Court has ruled that a long-standing business history does not create an indefeasible right to operate if site-specific risks like heavy vehicle movement and inadequate firefighting equipment jeopardize the public.

In a balanced decision, a bench of the Hon’ble Justice Sunitha Gandham adjudicated a challenge against the cancellation of a No Objection Certificate (NOC) for a fireworks shop. The court examined the interplay between the right to trade under Constitution of India and the regulatory power of the state to ensure public safety in hazardous business zones.

Judicial Scrutiny of Statutory Powers

The Court analyzed the scope of Rule 115(1)(c) of the Explosives Rules, 2008, emphasizing that the 'public peace and safety' clause is an exacting standard. It noted that while a single factor like an adjoining service road might not suffice, the cumulative effect of specific safety-related circumstances justifies state intervention.

The Court has the following directions:

"...this writ petition is disposed of, remanding the matter to the appellate authority to decide the matter afresh after considering the submissions of the petitioner together with the Fire Services NOC dated 30.05.2022 and any other material demonstrating compliance with the Explosives Rules, 2008. The appellate authority shall consider the same independently, in accordance with law, and without being influenced by any observation in this order beyond the findings necessary for disposal of the present writ petition."

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "The right to carry on trade or business under Article 19(1)(g) is subject to reasonable restrictions in the interests specified in Article 19(6). Regulation of the location and operation of a fireworks shop, where necessary to protect human life and public safety, is a legitimate regulatory measure. Such regulation must, of course, be based on relevant material and exercised in accordance with law."

Background

The petitioner, who had been operating a fireworks shop since 2007, challenged a cancellation order issued by the Commissioner of Police, Visakhapatnam, which was later confirmed by the Director General of Police. The action was initially triggered by a newspaper report, but subsequent joint inspections by police and fire officials revealed that the shop was situated near a service road with heavy vehicle movement and automobile shops dealing with lubricants. The petitioner argued that Explosives Rules, 2008 Rule 115 did not permit cancellation solely based on local development and cited Manoj Mittal v. Union of India and four others to argue that population growth is not a statutory ground for cancellation.

The High Court distinguished Manoj Mittal v. Union of India and four others, noting that in this instance, the authorities had identified specific deficiencies such as inadequate firefighting appliances and proximity to hazardous materials. However, noticing that a fresh NOC from the Fire Services Department was issued after the initial cancellation order, the Court remanded the matter to the appellate authority for a fresh determination, ensuring the new evidence is considered.

Case Details:
Case No.: WRIT PETITION NO: 33754/2022
Neutral Citation: 2026:APHC:47270
Case Title: K V MANIKYAMBA v. THE STATE OF AP AND OTHERS
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): R SIVA SAI SWARUP
For the Respondent(s): GP FOR HOME

Source: 2026 CaseBase(AP) 19893