The Gujarat High Court has clarified that state-level authorities cannot impose additional licensing conditions for fireworks manufacturing beyond those prescribed under the central Explosives Act and Rules. This judgment reinforces the principle of legislative supremacy in matters of explosive regulation and provides critical guidance to manufacturers facing arbitrary administrative delays.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioners, a family of traditional fireworks manufacturers in Gujarat, applied in 2024 - 2025 for a new manufacturing licence under Form LE-1 of the Explosive Rules, submitting all required documents including Fire Safety NOC and NA Permission. Their application remained pending without decision. On 21.08.2025, the District Collector of Gujarat issued new guidelines imposing additional conditions not found in the central Explosives Rules. The petitioners contended these guidelines were illegal, as rule-making power under the Explosives Act vests exclusively with the Central Government.
Key Facts
- The petitioners have been engaged in fireworks manufacturing for several years, with family members holding valid licences under the Explosive Rules
- Application for new licence filed in 2024 - 2025 using Form LE-1 with prescribed fees and mandatory attachments
- District Collector issued SOP dated 21.08.2025 introducing new conditions for licensing
- No formal order of rejection issued; application remained in abeyance pending compliance with the SOP
- Petitioners argue that the Collector lacks legislative authority to frame conditions beyond those in the Explosives Rules
- Central Government alone holds rule-making power under Section 5 of the Explosives Act
Procedural History
- 2024 - 2025: Petitioners submitted Form LE-1 application for fireworks manufacturing licence
- 21.08.2025: District Collector issued SOP with additional licensing conditions
- December 2025: Petitioners filed Special Civil Application No. 12986 of 2025 before Gujarat High Court
- 13.03.2026: Hearing conducted before Justice Hemant M. Prachchhak
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought:
- Quashing of the SOP dated 21.08.2025
- Direction to decide their pending application within one week
- Grant of temporary licence during pendency of the petition
- Declaration that the Collector’s guidelines are ultra vires and without legal authority
The Parties' Positions
Petitioners: Argued that only the Central Government can prescribe licensing conditions under Section 5 of the Explosives Act and Rule 3 of the Explosive Rules. Any additional conditions by state authorities are void for want of legislative competence.
Respondents: Did not contest the legal position on rule-making power but argued procedural delays were due to administrative backlog and that the SOP was merely advisory.
The Legal Issue
Can a District Magistrate or Collector impose additional conditions for granting fireworks manufacturing licences under guidelines issued independently of the Explosives Rules, or does the rule-making power under the Explosives Act vest exclusively in the Central Government?
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioners relied on Section 5 of the Explosives Act, which vests exclusive rule-making power in the Central Government. They cited Rule 3 of the Explosive Rules which prescribes the sole conditions for licence issuance. They argued that the SOP dated 21.08.2025 created new substantive conditions not found in the Rules, thereby violating the doctrine of ultra vires. They further relied on State of Punjab v. Devi Ram and K. S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India to assert that administrative guidelines cannot supplement or override statutory rules.
For the Respondent
The Advocate General for the State of Gujarat conceded that the power to frame rules lies with the Central Government but contended that the SOP was issued for safety and public order purposes under general administrative discretion. No specific statutory provision was cited to support the SOP’s legal validity.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the legislative framework under the Explosives Act, 1884, particularly Section 5, which states: "The Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, make rules for carrying out the purposes of this Act." The Court noted that Rule 3 of the Explosive Rules, 1983 comprehensively lists the conditions for grant of manufacturing licences, including safety, location, and documentation requirements.
"The power to prescribe conditions for the grant of licence under the Explosives Act is not delegable to district authorities. Any additional condition imposed by the Collector, even if well-intentioned, operates as a legislative act without legislative authority."
The Court held that the SOP dated 21.08.2025, by introducing new conditions not enumerated in the Rules, exceeded the Collector’s administrative authority. The Court rejected the argument that such guidelines were merely advisory, noting that their practical effect was to stall the petitioners’ application pending compliance with unlawful conditions.
The Court declined to issue a writ of mandamus directing immediate decision on the pending application, noting that the petitioners had not exhausted the administrative remedy. Instead, it directed the petitioners to file a fresh representation, ensuring procedural fairness.
The Verdict
The petition was disposed of with the following directions: The petitioners must file a fresh representation before Respondent No. 2 (District Collector) within two weeks. Respondent No. 2 shall decide the representation within six weeks of receipt, after providing a proper opportunity of hearing and permitting the petitioners to lead evidence. The SOP dated 21.08.2025 is effectively set aside to the extent it imposes conditions beyond the Explosive Rules. No interim licence was granted.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Rule-Making Power Is Non-Delegable
- Practitioners must challenge any state or district-level guidelines that add conditions to central statutory licensing regimes
- Administrative circulars cannot supplement or substitute statutory rules unless expressly authorized
- The doctrine of ultra vires applies strictly to licensing conditions under central enactments like the Explosives Act, RERA, or Drugs and Cosmetics Act
Exhaustion of Remedies Remains Critical
-
Courts will not intervene prematurely if a statutory application remains pending without formal rejection
-
Petitioners must first submit a fresh application and await a final order before approaching the High Court
-
This judgment reinforces the principle that judicial review is a remedy of last resort in administrative law
-
Always verify whether licensing conditions are prescribed in the parent Act or Rules before challenging administrative delays
-
Where guidelines impose new conditions, file a representation demanding compliance with statutory provisions only
-
In future litigation, cite State of Punjab v. Devi Ram to establish that administrative discretion cannot override legislative mandates
