Police Cannot Obstruct Lawful Chemical Trade Without Legal Authority When No Explosives Licence Is Required: Andhra Pradesh High Court

“Since the chemicals are purchased by the petitioner and sold to others in retail and the said chemicals do not require Explosives License, the Police are directed not to interfere in the business activities of the petitioner…” High Court of Andhra Pradesh delivered a decisive ruling in the realm of administrative law and police powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Court restrained police authorities from interfering in the lawful business activities of the petitioner, who was engaged in the retail sale of certain chemicals that did not require an explosives licence under the Explosives Act, 1884. While acknowledging the importance of public safety, the Court made it clear that any such concern must be addressed through the due process of law and not by arbitrary interference in a legally permitted business.

The ruling comes in the backdrop of ongoing harassment alleged by the petitioner, despite formal clarification from the Deputy Chief Controller of Explosives that the chemicals in question did not fall under the licensing regime. The judgment draws a constitutional line between regulatory compliance and overreach by law enforcement, especially when a business has not violated any statute.

"Mere Purchase of Chemicals by Accused Does Not Implicate Dealer Unless Statutorily Proven": High Court Rejects Guilt by Association

The genesis of the case lies in allegations that police officials were regularly visiting and interfering in the petitioner’s business on grounds that the shop was allegedly unsafe and that the petitioner was connected to a pending criminal case—Crime No. 235 of 2021—filed under Sections 304-II, 286, 336, and 338 of the Indian Penal Code along with Section 9(B) of the Explosives Act, 1884. The State’s position was that the petitioner’s shop was located in a narrow and congested area, thereby posing a public safety hazard. It further contended that the petitioner had supplied chemicals to the primary accused in that criminal case.

Refuting these claims, the petitioner categorically stated that he was not named in the FIR and had no criminal involvement in the incident. The only connection drawn was that the accused had purchased chemicals from his shop. On this basis alone, the petitioner claimed that police interference was not only unwarranted but unconstitutional, given that his trade was authorised and did not require any explosives licence.

In court, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the official letter dated 15.02.2023 from the Deputy Chief Controller of Explosives, which confirmed that the chemicals involved in the petitioner’s business were not governed by the Explosives Act, 1884. The petitioner also claimed that the frequent police interference was arbitrary, harassing, and without jurisdiction.

The Court, after hearing both parties, observed that there was no material before it to suggest that the petitioner had violated any statutory provisions. It held that the existence of a criminal case against a third party who had merely purchased chemicals from the petitioner’s lawful business could not, by itself, justify interference in his operations. The bench noted, “...the petitioner was shown as accused in Crime No. 235 of 2021, simply on the count that the main accused in the said case purchased the chemicals from the shop of the petitioner, except that, nothing is alleged against the petitioner in the said case.”

“If Chemicals Do Not Require Explosives Licence, There Is No Ground for Police Interference in Business Activity”: Court Protects Right to Trade

Addressing the core legal issue—whether a person can be restrained or interfered with by the police in running a lawful chemical business when no explosives licence is required—the Court gave a clear directive. In Para 6 of the judgment, Justice Dr. Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa held:

“Considering the submissions made and on perusal of material placed on record, since the chemicals are purchased by the petitioner and sold to others in retail and the said chemicals do not require Explosives License, the Police are directed not to interfere in the business activities of the Petitioner, but take necessary steps to avoid any untoward incidents. It does not preclude the police to follow the due process of law for public safety.”

This observation squarely places the duty on the State to act within the four corners of legality. It affirms that unless a statutory breach is established, there can be no presumption of wrongdoing or authority to interfere.

The Court clarified that while public safety is a valid concern, such concerns must be addressed through legitimate legal channels. The judgment stops short of giving blanket immunity but reinforces the legal safeguard that any action by public authorities must be rooted in law, not suspicion.

The Writ Petition was disposed of with no costs and with liberty reserved to the police to act strictly in accordance with law if any statutory violation or danger to public safety is established through lawful investigation. The Court’s refusal to grant unrestricted power to the police sends a strong message that mere proximity to a criminal case cannot amount to guilt or justify administrative coercion.

This judgment reiterates a vital constitutional principle under Article 19(1)(g)—that the right to carry on any trade or business cannot be restricted arbitrarily. Where a statutory requirement such as an explosives licence is admittedly not applicable, the State’s interference in such business would amount to an abuse of power.

By shielding the petitioner from baseless administrative action while preserving the State's authority to act under the law if warranted, the Court has struck a fair constitutional balance between individual rights and collective safety.

Date of Decision: 09.10.2025