The Andhra Pradesh High Court has come to the aid of five firecracker manufacturers ahead of Diwali, ruling that their expired licences remain valid as renewal applications are pending. Citing the Explosives Rules, 2008, the court held that authorities were “not justified in interfering” with their businesses, while allowing action against legal violations after prior notice.Justice Maheswara Rao Kuncheam was hearing five petitions, which were clubbed together, filed by firecracker manufacturers seeking permission to continue their businesses while their licence renewal applications remained pending.Observing that the petitioners have been carrying on the business of manufacturing fireworks for a considerable period, the court said that under the Explosives Rules, 2008, “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.”“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,” the October 15 order said.It added, “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.” Justice Maheswara Rao Kuncheam directed the police not to interfere with the petitioners’ business of manufacturing fireworks during the pendency of their applications for licence renewal.Diwali countdown, licences pendingThe five firecracker manufacturers in Andhra Pradesh approached the high court after authorities failed to renew their licences, despite receiving their renewal applications and fees. The manufacturers said they have been making fireworks for a considerable period.The manufacturers added that the said renewal applications 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. They sought permission to continue operations ahead of Diwali, which falls on November 8 this year.Story continues below this adAlso Read | Delhi High Court bans fake videos misusing renowned surgeon Dr Devi Shetty’s identityThe assistant government pleader, appearing for the state, did not dispute the pendency of manufacturers’ applications for renewal of licences before the competent authority. However, he stated that in view of unfortunate incidents, the authorities were verifying the ground realities concerning violations across the state. Petitions allowedThe court noted Rule 116 of the Explosives Rules, 2008, which states that refusal to amend or renew a licence or renew a licence should record the reasons for such refusal in writing and that the authorities shall refuse to renew a licence if such licence can be revoked in accordance with the Act or these rules.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 is refused, the court added.Considering the material on record, the court allowed the petitions, directing the 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.Story continues below this adAlso Read | ‘No permit’: Calcutta High Court bins CPI(M) plea against removal of Durga Puja bookstall However, the court added that the manufacturers should comply with the other requirements contemplated under law, and said that the 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 legal provisions as well as rules in vogue.