WP/28614/2026 of Sri Venkateswara Fire Works Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh on 14 October 2026

1. Sri Venkateswara Fire Works, (License No.02/1995) Rep. by its Proprietor Sri. Chelluboina Chintarao, S/o. Naga Bushanam, Aged about 62 years, Rio. D. No. 3-66/1, Visweswarayapuram Village, Malkipuram Mandal, Konaseema

AND

1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur

3. The District Collector and District Magistrate, Amalapuram, Dr B.R. Ambedkar Konaseema District, Andhra Pradesh.

4. The District Disaster Response and Fire Officer, Dr B.R. Ambedkar Konaseema District, Andhra Pradesh.

5. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Dr B.R. Ambedkar Konaseema District, Amalapuram, Andhra Pradesh.

6. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Dr B.R. Ambedkar Konaseema pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one

in not renewing the LE-1 Licence Renewal, bearing Licence No.02/1995, after the paying the valid consideration made for renewal, dated 09.03.2025 and 18.03.2025 vide APTC FORM-10, Challan Nos. 80214583192024 and 8022029322272024 as illegal, arbitrary, disproportionate, unjust and violation of Articles 14, 19(1) (g), and 21 of Constitution of India, contrary to the provisions of the Explosives Act, 1884 and the Explosives Rules, 2008, and opposed to the principles of natural justice, and consequently direct the Respondents to consider the Petitioners application for renewal of the Fire No Objection Certificate and all consequential statutory permissions/licences without reference to the impugned proceedings, subject to verification of compliance with the prescribed safety norms and such additional safety measures, if any, as may be lawfully prescribed by the competent authority, and thereafter permit the Petitioner to resume the lawful manufacture of firecrackers in accordance with the licence conditions, within such time as may be stipulated by this Honble Court, and pass

in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to give the permissions to carryout the Petitioner's manufacturing business in view of the upcoming Diwali Festival and insofar as the Petitioner is concerned, and consequently direct the Respondents to consider the Petitioner's application for renewal of the Fire No Objection Certificate and other consequential statutory permissions/licences, in accordance with law, and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: M RAVINDRA

APHC010536832026

PRESENT

Between:

1. PEDDIREDDY SATYANARAYANA, S/o. Veeraju, aged about 50 years, residing at Nadakuduru Village, Karapa Mandal, East Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh. (Presently Kakinada District) ...Petitioner AND

1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.

3. The District Collector and District Magistrate, Kakinada District, Karapa Mandal, Andhra Pradesh.

4. The District Disaster Response and Fire Officer, Kakinada District, Karapa, Andhra Pradesh.

5. The Revenue Divisional Officer, . Kakinada, Kakinada District, Andhra Pradesh.

6. The Superintendent of Police, Kakinada District, Andhra Pradesh.

7. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kakinada,Kakinada District, Andhra Pradesh.

pleased toissue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one

more particularly the Respondent Nos. 3 to 5, in not renewing the Licence No. D. Dis. 04/M/2008,dt 13.10.2009 after the paying the valid consideration made for renewal, dated 19.02.2026 vide APTC FORM-10, Challan No. 91370689592025 and placing the Petitioner's valid Fire No Objection Certificate issued to the Petitioner's LE-1 Fire Crackers Manufacturing Unit in kept pending, as illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable, violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India, contrary to the provisions of the Explosives Act, 1884 and the Explosives Rules, 2008, and opposed to the principles of natural justice, and consequently set aside the same and consequently direct the Respondents to consider the Petitioner's application for renewal of the Fire No Objection Certificate and grant licences without reference to the impugned proceedings, in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased direct the respondents to give the permissions to carry out the Petitioner's manufacturing business in view of the upcoming Festival season insofar as the Petitioner is concerned, and other consequential statutory permissions/licences, in accordance with law, Counsel for the Petitioner: THANJAVURU VENKATA SUMAN

APHC010520592026

PRESENT

Between:

1. KOPPANA CHINNAVEERARAJU, S/o. Suryarao, aged about 75 years, residing at Jaggampeta, J.Kothuru, East Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh- 533435. (Presently Kakinada District) ...Petitioner AND

1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.

3. The District Collector and District Magistrate, Kakinada District, Jaggampeta, Andhra Pradesh.

4. The District Disaster Response and Fire Officer, Kakinada District, Jaggampeta, Andhra Pradesh.

5. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Peddapuram Division, Kakinada District, Andhra Pradesh.

6. The Superintendent of Police, Kakinada District, Andhra Pradesh.

7. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kakinada, Kakinada District, Andhra Pradesh.

pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the Respondents, more particularly the Respondent Nos. 3 to 5, in not renewing the LE-1 Licence Renewal, bearing Licence No. D. Dis. 04/M/ 2004, after payment of licence renewal fee for 5 years for renewal, dated 27.02.2026 vide APTC FORM-10, Challan No. 91383184932025 and placing the Petitioner's valid Fire No Objection Certificate issued to the Petitioner's LE-1 Fire Crackers Manufacturing Unit in kept pending, as illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable, violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India, contrary to the provisions of the Explosives Act, 1884 and the Explosives Rules, 2008, and opposed to the principles of natural justice, and consequently direct the Respondents to consider the Petitioner's application for renewal of the Fire No Objection Certificate and grant licences without reference to the impugned proceedings in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased direct the respondents to give the permissions to carry out the Petitioner's manufacturing business in view of the upcoming Festival season insofar as the Petitioner is concerned, and other consequential statutory permissions/licences, in accordance with law, Counsel for the Petitioner: THANJAVURU VENKATA SUMAN

APHC010532332026

PRESENT

Between:

1. SRI LAXMI FIRE WORKS, (License No.03/2000) Rep. by its Proprietor Sri. Gubbala.Veera Venkata Satyanarayana, S/o. Narasimhamurthy, Aged about 62 years, R/o. D. No. 1-21/2, RS. No. 91/1, Vadrevupalli Village, P. Gannavram Mandal, Konaseema District, Andhra Pradesh. ...Petitioner AND

1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.

3. The District Collector and District Magistrate, Dr B.R. Ambedkar Konaseema District, Andhra Pradesh.

4. The District Disaster Response and Fire Officer, Dr B.R. Ambedkar Konaseema District, Andhra Pradesh.

5. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Dr B.R. Ambedkar Konaseema District, Kothapeta, Andhra Pradesh.

6. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Dr B.R. Ambedkar Konaseema pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one

in not renewing the LE-1 Licence Renewal, bearing Licence No.03/2000, after the paying the valid consideration made for renewal, dated 23.02.2025 and 31.03.2025 vide APTC FORM-10, Challan Nos. 80205342382024 and 80232023912024 as illegal, arbitrary, disproportionate, unjust and violation of Articles 14, 19(1) (g), and 21 of Constitution of India, contrary to the provisions of the Explosives Act, 1884 and the Explosives Rules, 2008, and opposed to the principles of natural justice, and consequently direct the Respondents to

Certificate and all consequential statutory permissions/licences without reference to the impugned proceedings, subject to verification of compliance with the prescribed safety norms and such additional safety measures, if any, as may be lawfully prescribed by the competent authority, and thereafter permit the Petitioner to resume the lawful manufacture of firecrackers in accordance with the licence conditions, within such time as may be stipulated by this Hon'ble Court

in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased direct the respondents to give the permissions to carryout the Petitioner's manufacturing business in view of the upcoming Diwali Festival and insofar as the Petitioner is concerned, and consequently direct the Respondents to consider the Petitioner's application for renewal of the Fire No Objection Certificate and other consequential statutory permissions/licences, in accordance with law, Counsel for the Petitioner: M RAVINDRA

APHC010520512026

PRESENT

Between:

1. Kummarthi Vasantha Rao, S/o. Krishna, aged about 42 years, residing at D.No. 15-8-9/1, Sambamurthy Nagar, Near Railway gate, Kakinada Urban Mandal, East Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh. (Presently Kakinada District) ...Petitioner AND

1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur

3. The District Collector and District Magistrate, Kakinada District, Kakinada, Andhra Pradesh.

4. The District Disaster Response and Fire Officer, Kakinada District, Kakinada, Andhra Pradesh.

5. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kakinada, Kakinada District, Andhra Pradesh.

6. The Superintendent of Police, Kakinada District, Andhra Pradesh.

7. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kakinada, Kakinada District, Andhra Pradesh.

pleased toto issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the Respondents, more particularly the Respondent Nos. 3 to 5, in not renewing the Licence No.917/2011 after the paying the valid consideration payment fee for renewal, dated21.09.2026 vide APTC FORM-10, Challan No.10105497842026 and placing the Petitioners valid Fire No Objection Certificate issued to the Petitioners LE-1 Fire Crackers Manufacturing Unit in kept pending, as illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable, violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India, contrary to the provisions of the Explosives Act, 1884 and the Explosives Rules, 2008, and opposed to the principles of natural justice, and consequently direct the Respondents to

Certificate and all consequential statutory permissions/licences without reference to the impugned proceedings,

in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to give the permissions to carry out the Petitioner's manufacturing business in view of the upcoming Diwali Festival and insofar as the Petitioner is concerned, and consequently direct the Respondents to consider the Petitioner's application for renewal of the Fire No Objection Certificate and other consequential statutory permissions/licences, in accordance with law, Counsel for the Petitioner: THANJAVURU VENKATA SUMAN

WRIT PETITION Nos: 28614, 29977, 28432, 29145 and 28430 of 2026

COMMON ORDER:

As the issue involved in all the Writ Petitions is one and the same and in view of the consent expressed by both the parties, the batch of Writ Petitions is disposed of by way of this common order.

2.

action of the Respondents, in not renewing the LE-1 Licence Renewal, bearing Licence No.02/1995, after the paying the valid consideration made for renewal, dated 09.03.2025 and 18.03.2025 vide APTC Form- 10, Challan Nos.80214583192024 and 8022029322272024 as illegal, arbitrary, disproportionate, unjust and violation of Articles 14, 19(1) (g), and 21 of Constitution of India, contrary to the provisions of the Explosives Act, 1884 and the Explosives Rules, 2008, and opposed to the principles of natural justice, and consequently direct the Respondents to consider the Petitioners application for renewal of the Fire No Objection Certificate and all consequential statutory permissions/licences without reference to the impugned proceedings, subject to verification of compliance with the prescribed safety norms and such additional safety measures, if any, as may be lawfully prescribed by the competent authority, and thereafter permit the Petitioner to resume the lawful manufacture of firecrackers in accordance with the licence conditions, within such time as may be stipulated by this Hon’ble Court and to pass”.

3.

action of the Respondents, more particularly the Respondent Nos. 3 to 5, in not renewing the Licence No. D. Dis. 04/M/2008,dt 13.10.2009 after the paying the valid consideration made for renewal, dated 19.02.2026 vide APTC FORM-10, Challan No. 91370689592025 and placing the Petitioner's valid Fire No Objection Certificate issued to the Petitioner's LE-1 Fire Crackers Manufacturing Unit in kept pending, as illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable, violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India, contrary to the provisions of the Explosives Act, 1884 and the Explosives Rules, 2008, and opposed to the principles of natural justice, and consequently set aside the same and consequently direct the Respondents to consider the Petitioner's application for renewal of the Fire No Objection Certificate and grant licences without reference to the impugned proceedings and to pass”.

4. Writ Petition N.28432 of 2026 has been filed under Article 226 of the

action of the Respondents, more particularly the Respondent Nos. 3 to 5, in not renewing the LE-1 Licence Renewal, bearing Licence No. D. Dis. 04/M/ 2004, after payment of licence renewal fee for 5 years for renewal, dated 27.02.2026 vide APTC FORM-10, Challan No. 91383184932025 and placing the Petitioner's valid Fire No Objection Certificate issued to the Petitioner's LE-1 Fire Crackers Manufacturing Unit in kept pending, as illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable, violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India, contrary to the

provisions of the Explosives Act, 1884 and the Explosives Rules, 2008, and opposed to the principles of natural justice, and consequently direct the Respondents to consider the Petitioner's application for renewal of the Fire No Objection Certificate and grant licences without reference to the impugned proceedings and to pass”.

5.

action of the Respondents, in not renewing the LE-1 Licence Renewal, bearing Licence No.03/2000, after the paying the valid consideration made for renewal, dated 23.02.2025 and 31.03.2025 vide APTC FORM- 10, Challan Nos. 80205342382024 and 80232023912024 as illegal, arbitrary, disproportionate, unjust and violation of Articles 14, 19(1) (g), and 21 of Constitution of India, contrary to the provisions of the Explosives Act, 1884 and the Explosives Rules, 2008, and opposed to the principles of natural justice, and consequently direct the Respondents to consider the Petitioner's application for renewal of the Fire No Objection Certificate and all consequential statutory permissions/licences without reference to the impugned proceedings, subject to verification of compliance with the prescribed safety norms and such additional safety measures, if any, as may be lawfully prescribed by the competent authority, and thereafter permit the Petitioner to resume the lawful manufacture of firecrackers in accordance with the licence conditions, within such time as may be stipulated by this Hon'ble Court and to pass”.

6.

action of the Respondents, more particularly the Respondent Nos. 3 to 5, in not renewing the Licence No.917/2011 after the paying the valid consideration payment fee for renewal, dated21.09.2026 vide APTC FORM-10, Challan No.10105497842026 and placing the Petitioners valid Fire No Objection Certificate issued to the Petitioners LE-1 Fire Crackers Manufacturing Unit in kept pending, as illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable, violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India, contrary to the provisions of the Explosives Act, 1884 and the Explosives Rules, 2008, and opposed to the principles of natural justice, and consequently direct the Respondents to consider the Petitioner's application for renewal of the Fire No Objection Certificate and all consequential statutory permissions/licences without reference to the impugned proceedings and to pass”.

7. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for the respondents and perused the entire material available on record.

8. As per the facts pleaded by the petitioners, earlier licences were granted to the petitioners to manufacture fireworks. On the basis of the said licences granted in their favour, it is stated that the petitioners have been carrying on the business of manufacturing fireworks for a considerable period. While so, they said licences granted in favour of the petitioners stood expired.

9. It is also asserted that the petitioners have submitted an application before the competent authority for renewal of the said licences within the

prescribed period. Learned counsel for the petitioners draw attention of this Court the following information in respect of their assertions: WRIT PETITION No. DETAILS OF PETITIONERS’ LICENSE RENEWAL WP No.28614 of 2026 LE-1 Licence Renewal, bearing Licence No.02/1995, after the paying the valid consideration made for renewal, dated 09.03.2025 and 18.03.2025 vide APTC FORM-10, Challan Nos. 80214583192024 and 8022029322272024 WP No.29977 of 2026 Licence No. D. Dis. 04/M/2008,dt 13.10.2009 after the paying the valid consideration made for renewal, dated 19.02.2026 vide APTC FORM-10, Challan No. 91370689592025 WP No.28432 of 2026 LE-1 Licence Renewal, bearing Licence No. D. Dis. 04/M/ 2004, after payment of licence renewal fee for 5 years for renewal, dated 27.02.2026 vide APTC FORM-10, Challan No. 91383184932025 WP No.29145 of 2026 LE-1 Licence Renewal, bearing Licence No.03/2000, after the paying the valid consideration made for renewal, dated 23.02.2025 and 31.03.2025 vide APTC FORM-10, Challan Nos. 80205342382024 and 80232023912024 WP No.28430 of 2026 Licence No.917/2011 after the paying the valid consideration payment fee for renewal, dated21.09.2026 vide APTC FORM-10, Challan No.10105497842026

10. Learned counsels further adds that the said applications preferred by the petitioners are still pending consideration before the competent authority and no order either renewing the said licences or rejecting the same has been passed till now.

11. Petitioners state that they have been continuing their business in manufacturing fireworks for all this length of time pending the applications for renewal of their licences. It is the grievance of the writ petitioners that the

respondents are now objecting the petitioners business works such as manufacture of fireworks, without any valid reason at all.

12. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home has not disputed the pendency of petitioners’ applications for renewal of licenses before competent authority. However, he states that in view of unfortunate incidents, the authorities are verifying the ground realities so far as statutory violations across State of Andhra Pradesh.

13. The Explosives Act, 1884 is a special enactment. In terms of the Sections 5 and 7 of the Explosives Act, and in supersession of the Explosive Rules 1983, the Central Government issued the Explosives Rules, 2008. In this context, it is relevant to note Rule 112(5) of the Explosives Rules, 2008, which reads as follows: “R.112(5). If the application for renewal reaches the renewing or licensing authority on or before the date of expiry, the licence shall be deemed to be in force until such date as the licensing authority renews the licence or until an intimation that the renewal of the licence is refused has been communicated to the applicant.” Emphasis supplied.

14. A reading of the aforesaid rule makes it manifest that, it is a deeming provision and the relevant rule mandates that when the application for renewal that was submitted by the applicant reaches the renewing or licensing authority before the date of expiry, the licence shall be deemed to be in force, until such date as the licensing authority renews the licence or until an

intimation that the renewal of the licence is refused has been communicated to the applicant.

15. It is also apt to note Rule 116 of the Explosives Rules, 2008, which is as under:

116. Refusal to amend or renew a licence ---

(1) The licensing authority refusing to amend or renew a licence shall record the reasons for such refusal in writing.

(2) The licensing authority shall refuse to renew a licence if such licence can be revoked in accordance with the Act or these rules.

(3) A brief statement of reasons for refusal to renew a licence shall be given to the holder of the licence on demand unless in any case the licensing authority is of the opinion that it will not be in public interest to furnish such statement.

(4) Where the renewal of the licence is refused, the fee paid for the renewal shall be refunded to the licensee after deducting the proportionate fee for the period beginning from the date from which the licence was to be renewed up to the date from which renewal thereof is refused.

(5) Before refusing renewal of a licence under the rule, the holder of the licence shall be given an opportunity of being heard.

16. As seen from the material on record and even as per the submission made by learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, the applications submitted by the petitioners for renewal of licences are still pending consideration before the competent authority. No decision either renewing the said licences or rejecting the same has been taken till now by the competent authority. Therefore, as per Rule 112(5) of the Explosives Rules, 2008, which is a deeming provision, the licences that were earlier granted to the petitioners are deemed to be in force as of now. Further, Rule 116 of the very same Explosives Rules, 2008 is also apt in this context.

17. In a similar situation, earlier the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, in W.P.No.27884, 27898 and 27917 of 2022 vide Common Order dated 06.09.2022, while considering the similar grievance, ordered the police officials therein not to interfere with the business activity of the petitioners therein. Relying on the aforesaid orders, this Court inclined to follow the same dictum in the present Writ Petition too. Therefore, petitioners, who are similarly placed, are also entitled to the same relief in the instant Writ Petition as well.

19. As such, in view of the said clear legal position, when the licences, which were granted to the petitioners, are deemed to be in force, the respondents are not justified in interfering with the business activities of the petitioners in manufacturing the fireworks.

20. Consequently, the Writ Petitions are allowed, directing the respondent- police officials and other respondents not to interfere with the business activities of the petitioners in manufacturing fireworks during the pendency of petitioners’ applications for renewal of licences. However, the petitioners shall comply with the other requirements contemplated under law. It is made clear that respondent authorities are at liberty to issue prior notice and take appropriate steps in accordance with the law, in the event of any violation of statutory provisions as well Rules in vogue. No order as to costs.

Interlocutory applications, if any, pending shall stand closed.

____________________________________ JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM Date: 15.10.2026 Note: Issue CC by 20.10.2026 B/o. PSA

WRIT PETITION Nos: 28614, 29977, 28432, 29145 and 28430 of 2026

Date: 15.10.2026

Note: Issue CC by 20.10.2026 B/o. PSA