Licensing control for ammonium nitrate allows interim suspension without prior hearing and refusal of import licences to traders.

The special licensing regime for ammonium nitrate under the Explosives Act and the Ammonium Nitrate Rules permits interim suspension of a Form P-3 licence where the authority reasonably believes violation may create imminent public danger, and prior hearing is not required at that stage. The suspension was supported by recorded reasons and was treated as within the licensing authority's jurisdiction. The Rules were also read to allow refusal of a Form P-5 import licence to a trader, since import licences may be confined to actual users in the interest of regulatory control and national security. The impugned suspension and refusal were therefore upheld as lawful and reasonable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the interim suspension of the petitioner's Form P-3 licence under Rule 42 of the Ammonium Nitrate Rules, 2012 was without jurisdiction or vitiated for want of hearing and reasons; (ii) Whether rejection of the petitioner's Form P-5 application for import licence for ammonium nitrate was arbitrary or contrary to the Rules.

Issue (i): Whether the interim suspension of the petitioner's Form P-3 licence under Rule 42 of the Ammonium Nitrate Rules, 2012 was without jurisdiction or vitiated for want of hearing and reasons

Analysis: Section 6E of the Explosives Act, 1884 and Rule 42 of the Ammonium Nitrate Rules, 2012 confer power on the licensing authority to suspend a licence, and Rule 42(5) permits interim suspension without prior hearing where the authority forms an opinion that the violation is likely to cause imminent danger to the public. The order recorded the basis for suspension from information received from customs authorities regarding alleged unauthorised imports and sales, and a show-cause opportunity was afforded for confirmation of the suspension. The Court also accepted that the officer who passed the order was authorised to exercise the power in respect of Form P-3 licences.

Conclusion: The interim suspension was held to be valid and within jurisdiction, and the challenge to it failed.

Issue (ii): Whether rejection of the petitioner's Form P-5 application for import licence for ammonium nitrate was arbitrary or contrary to the Rules

Analysis: Rule 6(4) of the Ammonium Nitrate Rules, 2012 regulates import and export of ammonium nitrate, and the Court treated the regulatory scheme, the explosive character of ammonium nitrate, and the concern of national security as justifying a restriction that import licences be issued only to actual users. The Court held that the petitioner, being a trader, had no vested right to insist on import licence as of course, and the impugned rejection was a reasonable restriction within the regulatory framework. The existence of an appeal remedy did not persuade the Court to interfere in the facts of the case.

Conclusion: The rejection of the Form P-5 import licence application was upheld as lawful and reasonable.

Final Conclusion: The writ petitions were not sustainable on either ground, and the regulatory orders impugned by the petitioner were left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute and its rules create a special licensing regime for a dangerous substance, the licensing authority may impose reasonable restrictions, including interim suspension without prior hearing in cases of imminent public danger and refusal of import licence consistent with national security and the regulatory scheme.

---