++ On a careful reading of the impugned order, it is evidently clear that the respondent on receipt of the information from the Principal Commissioner of Customs, Chennai, has taken note of the materials placed before it and it appears on further investigation on selected buyers (as stated in the counter affidavit), mentioned that the entire quantity of Ammonium Nitrate was used in Mines and Quarries for blasting operations and not used for agricultural purposes.
++ Therefore, the respondent taking into consideration the information received by it, has formed an opinion that licence granted to the petitioner requires to be placed under suspension as an interim measure and the reasons for exercising the power of interim suspension is vivid on a reading of the impugned order. Therefore, the petitioner is not correct in contending that the Licencing Authority has not recorded his opinion, while exercising the power of the interim suspension. If ultimately, the allegations are established, it is a serious matter especially when, Ammonium Nitrate has been declared as a "explosive substance" for which the Ammonium Nitrate Rules were framed and came into force on 11.07.2012. That apart, in terms of proviso in Rule 42(5), the respondent has granted an opportunity to the petitioner to show cause as to why the Licence should not be cancelled. Therefore, the impugned order cannot be stated to be devoid of reasons nor it can be stated that the competent authority did not form an opinion before passing the order of interim suspension. Thus, the contention raised by the petitioner in this regard does not merit acceptance.
++ Thus, having held that the order of interim suspension has been made in a proper manner and the Licencing Authority has exercised the power in the manner stipulated under Rule 42(5)(i) and the Authority who passed the order having been vested with jurisdiction, the same does not suffer from any illegality and accordingly, the challenge to the order of interim suspension, dated 20.05.2016 should necessarily fail.
++ This Court can take judicial notice of the fact from various news reports that the presence of Ammonium Nitrate in the bombs, which exploded in various parts of the country, raised a debate on the availability of the substance, primarily who used to make explosives and fertilisers. The report reveals that though the Government enacted the Rules to regulate the sale of Ammonium Nitrate, it was still easily available and is being used by terror groups to make bombs and a report of the Intelligence Bureau suggested that during 2012 alone, 4000Ts of Ammonium Nitrate had gone missing. It is further reported that in 2013, there were around 20000 consumers of Ammonium Nitrate and all these persons had applied for licence after the Ammonium Nitrate Rules were framed, the reason being classification of the Ammonium Nitrate changed from an innocuous fertiliser ingredients to the Explosive device. The report further states that it has been a matter of concern for investigating agencies, as they have found that Ammonium Nitrate has been used in every blast case in the recent past and although the police have arrested several persons they have not been able to trace the origin of the chemical in even a single case. It is further reported that the Police say that large quantity of Ammonium Nitrate has gone missing, since the past four years (2013) and at an average, there has been no account for nearly 16000Ts of Ammonium Nitrate in the past four years (2013). It is further reported that even if 20kgs of Ammonium Nitrate gets into the hand of the bomb maker he can easily make 20 bombs out of it. That apart, it is stated that Ammonium Nitrate can be stored for two years without damage.
++ The use of Ammonium Nitrate having been regulated, the petitioner cannot, as a matter of right, claim that except for the circumstances set out in Rule 6(4), there can be no restriction on import or export of Ammonium Nitrate, and it cannot be a ground to interfere with the impugned order, as the Rule 6 only postulates general restrictions. Thus, while rejecting the application submitted by the petitioner for grant of licence in Form P-5, bearing in mind the interest of the National Security, thought fit to restrict issuance of licence in favour of the Ammonium Nitrate users and the petitioner being a trader, rejected their application.
++ The restriction imposed is a reasonable restriction in the light of the fact, separate Rules were framed for regulation of the use of Ammonium Nitrate, which has been specifically brought within the definition of an explosive substance. In such circumstances, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order.
(See 2016-TIOL-2441-HC-MAD-CUS)
