Authority: High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati (Special Original Jurisdiction)

Order Date: 04-11-2026

Case Overview

  • Petitioner: K V Manikyamba, W/O Prasad, aged 45, proprietor of M/s Kolla Butchiraju Fire Works, located at Door No.13‑14‑6, Kakatiya ITI Road, New Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam.
  • Respondents: (1) State of Andhra Pradesh (Principal Secretary – Home), (2) Directorate General of Police cum Appellate Authority, Mangalagiri, (3) Commissioner of Police cum Additional District Magistrate, Visakhapatnam, (4) Station House Officer, Gajuwaka Police Station.
  • Nature of Proceeding: Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the cancellation of a No‑Objection Certificate (NOC) issued to the petitioner’s fireworks shop.
  • Background:
  • The petitioner has been operating the fireworks business since 2007 under licence Form LE‑5 issued under the Explosives Rules, 2008, with periodic renewals and no recorded accidents.
  • A fire‑department NOC was issued on 30‑May‑2022.
  • A newspaper report dated 13‑Oct‑2017 alleged a demand for money; authorities initiated action based on that report.
  • Joint inspection on 26‑Apr‑2018 recorded the shop’s proximity to automobile shops, lubricant retailers, a petroleum outlet, and painting/manufacturing units, raising safety concerns.
  • Show‑cause notice issued on 26‑Jun‑2019; petitioner submitted representations and was granted a personal hearing (adjourned to 15‑Jul‑2020 and 22‑Jul‑2020).
  • Fresh joint inspection conducted on 15‑Sep‑2021; petitioner appeared before the Station House Officer.
  • Commissioner of Police cum Additional District Magistrate cancelled the NOC via M.O. No.10/2021 dated 20‑Sep‑2021.
  • Petitioner's appeal (Appeal No.1/2022, R.C. No.1183/L&O‑III/2022) was dismissed by the Director General of Police on 10‑Oct‑2022, confirming the cancellation.
  • Legal Contentions:
  • Petitioner argued that Rule 115 of the Explosives Rules, 2008 does not permit cancellation merely due to changes in locality or population growth; cancellation under clause (c) requires absolute necessity for public peace and safety.
  • Petitioner claimed the distance from the nearest licensed premises was 550 metres, far exceeding the statutory 15‑metre requirement, and that authorities incorrectly applied a 50‑metre standard.
  • Petitioner cited the fire‑department NOC (30‑May‑2022) and the absence of any accident or complaint as evidence of safety.
  • Respondents contended that the joint inspection reports highlighted specific safety issues: adjoining service road, heavy vehicle movement, proximity to petrol/bulk‑flammable establishments, and inadequate firefighting equipment.
  • Both sides referenced the principle from Manoj Mittal v. Union of India regarding cancellation based solely on population density.
  • Procedural Observations:
  • The court noted that the petitioner was issued a show‑cause notice, allowed to submit written representations, and was heard personally.
  • A further joint inspection was carried out after the petitioner’s representations.
  • The appellate authority considered the inspection findings, the petitioner’s objections, and the fire‑services NOC before dismissing the appeal.
  • The court examined the applicability of Rule 86 (distance requirements) and Rule 115 (powers to cancel NOC) of the Explosives Rules, 2008.

Final Outcome

  • The High Court remands the matter to the appellate authority, directing it to reconsider the cancellation of the NOC after taking into account the fire‑services NOC dated 30‑May‑2022 and any other material demonstrating compliance with the Explosives Rules, 2008.
  • The appellate authority must decide the issue independently, applying the correct statutory distance requirements and assessing the cumulative safety concerns, without being bound by observations beyond those necessary for disposal of the present writ petition.
  • All pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand closed.

Topics: Legal Dispute, Explosives Regulation, Public Safety