Holding

The Court held that the grave air‑quality situation in the NCR justifies the suspension of all licences to store and sell fireworks under the Explosives Rules, 2008, without a prior hearing, as it is in the public interest.

Summary

The petitioners filed a writ petition under Article 32 seeking emergency relief from the severe air‑pollution in the National Capital Region caused by the widespread use of fireworks during Diwali and the marriage season. They alleged that the pollution breached fundamental rights, especially the right to life and health, and asked for a ban on fireworks. The Court examined data showing PM2.5 levels far exceeding WHO limits and noted that the Explosives Rules, 2008 (Rule 118(1)(5)) empower the Central Government to suspend licences in the public interest without a hearing. Balancing the public’s right to a clean environment against the commercial interests of fireworks manufacturers, the Court held that the grave air‑quality situation justified an immediate suspension of all licences to store and sell fireworks in the NCR. Consequently, it directed the Central Government to suspend such licences until further orders and ordered the CPCB to prepare a report on the harmful effects of fireworks. The order was an interim direction, not a final determination on a total ban.

Issues considered

The Central Government’s power under Explosives Rules, 2008 (Rule 118(1)(5)) to suspend licences for fireworks in the public interest without a hearing.
Whether the extreme air‑pollution caused by fireworks violates fundamental rights under Articles 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution.
Whether the Court can issue interim relief directing suspension of fireworks licences in the NCR.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 19(1)(g), s. Article 21, s. Article 48A, s. Article 51A(g)
Explosives Act, 1884s. Rule 118(1)(5) sub‑rule
Explosives Rules, 2008s. Rule 118(1)(5)

Subjects

air pollutionfireworks banNCRfundamental rightsright to lifeenvironmental lawExplosives Actpublic interestinterim reliefconstitutional lawprecautionary principleinter‑generational equity

Judgment

[2016] 11S.C.R.812

A ARJUN GOPALAND ORS.
v.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
I.A. No.4
8
In
(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 728of2015)
NOVEMBER 11,2016
[T. S. THAKUR, CJI, A. K. SIKRI ANDS. A. BOBDE, JJ.]
c
Constitution of India - Parts III, IV and !VA - Right to clean
air - Writ petition u!Art.32 seeking emergent reliefs in relation to
the extreme air pollution in the National Capital Region (NCR), owing
to use of fireworks especially during festival/marriage season -
Held: Fireworks release a deadly concoction offumes into an almost-
D
still winter air in Delhi, causing extreme air pollution during this
time -Ambient air quality during the Diwali period shows that air
pollution across the capital has reached record levels and has
become intolerable - Severe air pollution in NCR is leading to
multiple diseases and other extreme health related effects which leads
E
to abject deprivation ofa range ofconstitutionally embedded rights
that the residents of NCR ought to have enjoyed - Thus, when the
Air Quality Index in NCR is abysmally and threateningly severe,
allowingfree trade in fireworks constitute a serious invasion of the
Freedoms and Rights conferred on citizens by Part Ill of the
F Constitution - A just constitutional balance, must overwhelmingly
prioritize the harmful effects of this hazardous air on present and
future generations, over the immediate commercial constraints of
the manufacturers and suppliers offireworks - The balance must
heavily tilt in favour of citizens in general - Therefore, in view of
G grave air quality situation in NCR, Central Government directed to
suspend the licenses to store and sell fireworks in NCR till further
orders - Jn addition, Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB)
directed to study and prepare a report on harmful effects ofmaterials
used in the manufacture of fireworks - Fundamental Rights -
H Directive Principles of State Policy - Fundamental Duties -
812
ARJUN GOPALAND ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 813

Environment - Pollution -Air/noise pollution. A
Explosive Rules, 2008 - r.118, sub-rule (5) - Suspension!
Cancellation of licence - Held: sub-rule 5 confers on the Central
Government a power to suspend or cancel a license if it considers
so to do in public interest, even without giving an opportunity of
being heard to the licensee - Thus, grave air quality situation is one B
such case, where the licenses to store and sell fireworks in NCR can
be suspended- Directed accordingly - Explosives Act, 1884.
MC.Mehta v. Union of India: 1998(6) SCC 60: 1998
(3) SCR 340 and 1998(9) SCC 589; M C. Mehta v.
Union oflndia 1998 (8) SCC 648; M C. Mehta v. Union C
of India 1998(8) SCC 206 : 1998 (2) Suppl. SCR 24;
State ofGujarat v. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat
(2005) 8 SCC 534 : 2005 (4) Suppl. SCR 582; Vellore
Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union oflndia, (1996) 5 SCC
647 : 1996 (5) Suppl. SCR 241 - referred to. o
Case Law Reference
1998 (3) SCR 340 referred to Para 10
1998 (8) sec 648 referred to Para 10
1998 (2) Suppl. SCR 24 referred to ParalO
E
2005 (4) Suppl. SCR 582 referred to Para 18
1996 (5) Suppl. SCR 241 referred to Para 18
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: I. A. No. 4 in Writ Petition
(C) No. 728of2015.
Under A1ticle 32 of the Constitution oflndia. F

K. K. Venugopal, Gopal Subramania, Sr. Advs., Ms. Pooja Dhar,
Zeeshan Diwan Ms. Sharda Deshmuk, Yijeth, Gagan Gupta, Rahul Gupta,
Shekhar Gupta, Ms. Ira Gupta,Anantap Mishra, Yoginder Handoo, Sachin
Mittal, Ms. Neha, Pravesh Ms. Pranchi, Mis. Manoj Swarup & Co.,
G
Advs. for the Petitioners.
N. K. Kaul, ASG.. C. A. Sund ram, Sr. Adv., Ms. Rohini Musa,
Zaffar Inayat, Ms. Yimla Sinha, Ms. Binu Tamta, B. K. Prasad, Ms. Yibha
Datta Makhija,Anubhav Kumar, Ms. Disha Yaish, S. WasimA. Qadri,
Ajay Sharma, GS. Makkar, Vijay Panjwani, Yibhu Shanker Mishra, H
814 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 11 S.C.R.

A D.S. Mahra, M/s. Corporate Law Group, Chirag M. Shroff, Debojit
Borkavati, Advs. for the Respondents.
The following Order of the Court was delivered
ORDER
B I. The petitioners have approached this Court seeking emergent
reliefs in relation to the extreme air pollution in the National Capital Region
(hereinafter "NCR").
2. We have heard Mr. K.K. Venugopal and Ms. Vibha Datta
Makhija, learned senior counsel for the petitioners and Mr. C.A. Sundaram,
c learned senior counsel for the respondent. The petitioner has sought
wide ranging reliefs against the use offireworks (including fire crackers),
prevention of harmful crop burning, dumping ofmalba and further steps
towards environmental purity. We have, however, restricted this order
to grant of interim relief in respect of fireworks.
D
3. The primary contention of the petitioners is that the use of
fireworks in the NCR has posed a serious problem to the inhability of the
air during Diwali and the wedding season. According to the petitioners,
the problem has reached propmtions in the NCR which are not tolerable
and are causing immense harm to the peace, well-being and health both
E physical and mental. In fairness, we must say that there was no serious
opposition to the impact offireworks on the ambient air and the unhealthy
effects of fireworks on it. The opposition was mainly about the total
banning of fireworks in all circumstances.
4. The onset of winter and the festival/marriage season this
F
year, presented to the residents ofNCR severe concerns regarding the
air quality standards. According to reports, the air quality standards in
early November of this year were the worst in the world. It is reported
that the PM 2.5 levels recorded where "beyond scale" values [see India s
air quality among world~· worst over Diwali weekend: Report.
G November 4, 2016, Hindustan Times]. The repmt indicates that 24
hour average of PM 2.5 levels in South Delhi in 2016 were 38% higher
than on the Diwali night of2015. The day after Diwali, these levels were
twice as high as the day after Diwali in 2015, crossing 650 µg/m3, which
is 26 times above the WHO's standards or levels considered safe.
H
ARJUN GO PAL AND ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 815

Shockingly, on the morning of I .11.2016, Delhi woke up to an average A
PM 2.5 level of over 700 µg/m 3-some of the highest levels recorded the
world over and 29 times above WHO standards. The rep01t fu1ther states
that the WHO guideline for 24-hour average PM 2.5 levels is 25 µg/m 3
and with an annual average PM 2.5 level of 122 µg/m 3 , Delhi's air is the
worst among global megacities with dense populations. We have B
particularly refen-ed to the PM 2.5 levels because of the extreme effects
and near invisibility of this type of particulate matter. PM 2.5 or particulate
matter 2.5 (PM2.5), refers to tiny particles or droplets in the air that are
two and one half microns or less in width. It may be noted that the
widths of the larger particles in the PM2.5 size range would be about c
thirty times smaller than that ofa human hair. These pa1ticles primarily
emanate from vehicle exhausts and other operations that involve the
burning offuels such as wood, heating oil or coal, and of course, use of
fire crackers.
5. In India, air quality standards are measured in terms of the D
Air Quality Index (hereainafter 'AQI'). The AQI was launched in India
on 17.10.2014 by the Ministry of Environment and Forests. According to
the press release of the Press information Bureau of the same date, it
consists ofa comprehensive set of parameters to monitor and asses the
air quality. TheAQI considers eight pollutants (PM 10, PM2.5, NO,, SO,, E
CO, 0 3, NH 3, and Pb), and based on the levels of these pollutants six
categories of AQI ranging from Good to Severe have been prescribed.
The index also suggests the health effects of the pollution category wise.
The gradation ofAQI and its health impact is extracted below:
Table -1 F
AQI Associated Health Im pacts
Good Minimal Impact
(0-50)
Satisfactory May cause minor breathing
(51-100) discomfort to sensitive people. G
Moderately polluted May cause breathing discomfort
to people with lung disease such
(101-200)
as asthma, and discomfort to
people with heart disease,
children and o Ider ad ult s.
H
816 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 11 S.C.R.

A
Poor May cause breathing discomfort to
(20 l-300) people on prolonged exposure, and
discomfort to people with heart
disease
Ve!)' Poor May cause respiratory illness to the
B (30 l-400) people on prolonged exposure.
Effect may be more pronounced in
neople with lung and heart diseases.
Severe May cause respiratory impact even
(401-500) on healthy people, and serious health
impacts on people with ltmgiheart
c disease. The health impacts may be
experienced even during light
physical activity.

Table-2
D
AQI Catt-gory, Pollutants and Health Breakpoints

AQI PM10 PM,, NO, o, CD so, NH 3 Pb
Category 24-hr 24-hr 24-hr 8-hr 8-hr 24-hr 24-IY 24-hr
(Range) (mg/
mJ)
E Jood (0-50) 0-50 0-30 0-40 0-50 0-1.0 0-40 0-200 0-0.5

Satisfactory 51-100 31-60 41-80 51-100 1.1-2.0 41-80 201-400 0.5-1.0
(51-100)

Modcrately 101-250 61-90 81 -180 101-168 2.1- IO 81-380 401-800 1.1-2.0
polluted
F (101-200)

Poor 251-350 91-120 181-280 169-208 10-17 381-800 801-1200 2. 1-3.0
(201-300)

Very poor 351-430 121-250 281-400 209- 17-34 ~01-1600 1200- 3.1-3.5
(301-400) 748* 1800
G
Severe 430+ 25o+ 40o+ 748+* 34+ 160o+ 180o+ 3.5+
(401-500)

6. Reports indicate that the AQI in Delhi was much above the
H severe standard, shooting off the AQI 500 mark on many days this
ARJUN GOPALAND ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 817

November. On the day after Diwali, it was more than 14 times the safe A
limits [see Delhi :S pollution levels peaks at 1./-16 times safe limits,
31.10.2016, The Hindu]. The adverse health effects of these hazardous
levels of pollution are only too evident from the table given above. We do
not intend to refer to the multiplicity ofreports and data on this front.
7. The hazardous levels of air pollution in the last few weeks 8
has spared very few from its ill effects. The life of the citizens ofNCR
was brought to a virtual standstill, not to speak about the plight of the
thousands of mute flora and fauna in NCR. Schools were declared shut,
denizens of the city advised to stay indoors, construction activities stopped,
power stations shut and ban imposed on burning of garbage and c
agricultural waste. The fall in air quality has had a significant impact on
people's lifestyle as well. The rising costs to protect against air pollution
are substantial. It has come to our notice that people are queuing up to
purchase protective masks and air purification systems in the wake of
dense smog all over the NCR. In short, the capital was 'smogged' into D
an environmental emergency ofunseen proportions.
8. The adverse effects of these extreme levels of air pollution
spare no one- the young, the old, the infirm and even the future generations.
A study of the data of the Global Health Depository of the World Health
Organization reveals that India has the world's highest death rate from E
chronic respiratory diseases and that about 1.5 million people in lndia die
annually due to indoor and outdoor pollution [see Delhi Wakes up to an
Air Pollution Problem It Cannot Ignore, 15.2.2015, The New York
Times]. The Kolkata-based Chittaranjan National Cancer Institute
(CNCI), in a study commissioned and handed over to the Central Pollution F
Control Board, found that key indicators of respiratory health, lung function
to palpitation, vision to blood pressure, of children in Delhi, between four
and 17 years of age, were worse off than theircounterpmts elsewhere.
lt also found that more than 40 percent of the school children suffer
from lung damage [see Landmark Study Lies Buried, 2.4.2015, The lndian G
Express]. We note with apprehension that there are nascent studies that
suggest that pollution can lower children's 1.Q., hurt their test scores and
increase the risks of autism, epilepsy, diabetes and even adult-onset
diseases like multiple sclerosis [see Holding Your Breath in India,
29.5.2015, The New York Times].
H
818 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2016] 11 S.C.R.

A 9. It has been brought to ournotice that the severe air pollution
in the NCR is leading to multiple diseases and other health related issues
amongst the people. It is said that the increase in respiratory diseases
like asthma, lung cancer, bronchitis etc. is primarily attributable to the
worsening air quality in the NCR. The damage being caused to people's
B lungs is said to be irreversible. Other health related issues like allergies,
temporary deafness are also on the rise. Various experts have pointed
towards multiple adverse effects of air pollution on human health like
premature deaths, rise in mortality rates, palpitation, loss of vision, arthritis,
heart ailments, cancer, etc.
C 10. When we refer to these extreme effects, we are not merely
referring to the inconvenience caused to people, but to abject deprivation
of a range of constitutionally embedded rights that the residents ofNCR
ought to have enjoyed. Needless to state, the grim situation of air quality
adversely affected the right to education, work, health and ultimately, the
D right to life of the citizens, and this Court is constitutionally bound to
address their grave concerns. May we remind ourselves, that this is not
the first time that this court was impelled into ensuring clean air for the
citizens of the capital region [see MC. Mehta vs. Union of India:
1998(6) SCC 60 and 1998(9) SCC 589; MC. Mehta vs. Union of
E India 1998 (8) SCC 648; MC. Mehta vs. Union of India 1998(8)
sec 206].
11. During the festival- marriage season in Delhi, that is between
October and February, a report suggests that more than 40 recognized
and other dangerous forms of firecrackers are used [see Fireworks make
F Diwali a Dangerous Festival for All, 4.11.2015, Down to Earth].
These fireworks release a deadly concoction offumes into an almost-
still winter air in Delhi, causing extreme air pollution during this time.
These fire crackers apart from causing acute air pollution also cause
severe noise pollution.A study suggests that fireworks emit fine particles
G of various elements like Copper, Barium, Strontium, Magnesium and
Potassium, all of which are used to provide the colour and glitter to
fireworks [ see The Impact of Fireworks on Airborne Particles,
Atmospheric Environment, Volume 42, Issue 6, 2008, pages 1121-
1132].

I-I
ARJUN GOPALAND ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA& ORS. 819

12. The latest report 1 by the Central Pollution Control Board A
(CPCB) on the ambient air quality during the Diwali period shows that
air pollution across the capital has reached record levels and has become
intolerable. We find that the air quality in NCR is mostly poor as per the
standards prescribed by the Government oflndia, but it becomes much
worse during Diwali. The concentrations of PM 2.5 and PM 10 which B
are indicators of air qua Iity have shown considerable increase in the
region. The following tables show the actual PM 2.5 and PM I0 levels in
Delhi during the Diwali 2016 period according to the CPCB report.
TABI.. E-3
c
PM 10 (in i1g/m3) LEVELS IN DELHI
PRE - DIWALI DIWALI DAY
STATION 2015 20I6 2015 2016
D
ITO 166 203 531 878
PITAMPURA I 6I 368 460 1297
JANAKPURI I 19 2I3 554 902
PARIVESH 166 324 593 1183 E
BHAWAN
DILSHAD NA NA NA NA
GARDEN
SHADIPUR NA NA NA NA F
NSJT, DWARKA NA NA NA NA
RKPURAM NA 346 NA 454
MANDIRMARG NA 236 NA 428
PUNJABI BAGH NA G
236 NA 779
ANAND VIHAR NA 644 NA 1084
AVERAGE 153 321.25 534.5 875.62

1
CPCB Deepawali Monitoring Report. 2016 H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 11 S.C.R.
820

TABLE-4
A
PM 2.5 (in µg/m 3 ) LEVELS IN DELIIl

PRE-DIWALI DIWALI DAY

STATION 2015 2016 2015 2016
B
ITO NA l 04 NA 797

PITAMPURA 117 102 435 1238

JANAKPURl 84 96 459 842
c
PARIVESH 96 84 474 958
BHAWAN

DILSHAD GARDEN 78 119 192 602
D SHADIPUR 108 62 121 474

NSIT, DWARKA 191 118 99 457

RKPURAM NA 144 NA 285
E MANDIRMARG NA 92 NA 296

PUNJABI BAGH NA I 08 NA 402

ANANDV!HAR NA 178 NA 430
F AVERAGE 112.33 109.72 296.67 616.45

13. The CPCB report indicates that air pollution levels acro:;s
the region rises by about 4-5 times on Diwali as a consequence ofburning
of fireworks. Numerous accidents take place due to unregulated
G manufacture, storage and transport of fireworks resulting in substantial
damage to life and property. Further, unsupervised bursting of fireworks
also leads to many accidents where unfortunately most victims are children.
They are a source ofboth, air pollution and noise pollution. Something
that is meant to be a celebration seems to be destroying the peace and
H tranquility which is necessary for rest.
ARJUN GO PAL AND ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 821

14. Grievance was made before us about the thousands, even a A
lakh of crackers on one string going offat night; and several such strings
going off in the neighborhood, totally unmindful of the aged, the tender
and the ill. All this firework, even that which is not noisy, leaves the
ambient air thick with noxious particles. Marriage processions, barats,
passing through an area generated the same kind of noise and leave B
behind the same kind ofair, by the use of fire crackers. It is not necessary
to speculate if those who suffer send their good wishes for the event, or
to those 'celebrating' Diwali in this way.
15. We are conscious that we are dealing with time honoured
ways of celebrating certain occasions. The petitioners and every member C
of the Bench and the Bar also celebrate in the same way. But does that
justify the continuance of this mannerof celebration, when the quality of
air in the region is so poor and injurious to health and well bei:lg ar.d is
destroying essential components of the freedom to live a healthy life? In
any case till the quality of air improves we do not pronounce finally on o
this question at this stage.
16. It is however ce1tain that, now, when the Air Quality Index in
the NCR is abysmally and threateningly severe, allowing free trade in
fireworks which is a major source ofnoise and air pollution and is causing
immense harm to the lives and health ofcitizens, and allowing availability E
of such fireworks or explosives constitutes a serious invasion of the
Freedoms and Rights conferred on citizens by Part 1II of the Constitution
oflndia. Such an invasion is all the more deleterious towards the rights
and freedom of the poor and the underprivileged who must breathe such
air without any means of protecting themselves. F
17. There is no doubt that protecting citizens (including those
who use fireworks) by making these unavailable in the market would
require the suspension of trade ofa miniscule section of the population.
Maybe they have acquired stocks for sale or obtained credit for their
business. We are however of the view, that balancing the vital interests G
of the vast majority ofcitizens against the commercial interests ofa few,
the balance must heavily tilt in favour of citizens in general.
18. We are aware that we are only issuing interim directions,
and much is left to be heard, discussed and said about the rival claims
H
822 SUPREME COURT REPORTS f2016111 S.C.R.

A and contentions. What is however indisputable is that the harmful effects
of fireworks on the ambient air and the lungs, eyes and ears of people.
What is also obvious is the extreme nuisance, noise the fireworks cause
to citizens particularly the ailing and the aged. Therefore, though much
can be argued as always about the significance and even joy ofbursting
B fireworks. But at the same, prima facie, a just constitutional balance,
must overwhelmingly prioritize the harmful effects of this hazardous air
on present and future generations, irreversible and imperceptible as they
are, over the immediate commercial constraints of the manufacturers
and suppliers of fireworks. Secondly, this court recognizes that the duty
c to ensure a healthy environment not only falls on the State in terms of
Article 48-A of the Constitution oflndia but also on all citizens under
Article 5 lA (g) of the Constitution. This Court has previously held that
fundamental duties in Part IV A of the Constitution could be a guiding
factor in testing the reasonableness ofrestrictions under Article 19(2)-
(6) of the Constitution oflndia [See State of Gujarat v. Mirzapur Moti
D
Kureshi Kassab Jamat, (2005) 8 SCC 534; para 58] The principle of
inter-generational equity, recognized and applied by this Court in a number
of decisions, beaconing us to the health and needs of the future generation,
also favours the issuance of interim directions. Lastly, the precautionary
principle, affirmed by this court in Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v.
E union oflndia, ( 1996) 5 sec 64 7' mandates that where there are threats
of serious and irreversible damage, lack of scientific certainty should not
be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental
degradation.
19. We thus consider it inappropriate that explosives which are
F
used as fireworks should be available in the market in the NCR till futther
orders. The mechanism of the law in this regard is clear. Rule 1181 ofthe
Explosive Rules, 2008, framed under the Explosives Act, 1884 provides
for the manner in which licenses issued under the Explosives Act to
G ' Suspension and revocation or cancellation of licence.--{ I) Every licence granted
under these rules shall- (I) stand cancelled, if-(a) the licensee has ceased to have any
right for the lawful possession over the licensed premises; (b) the licensee is convicted
and sentenced under any criminal offences or ordered to execute under Chapter VIII of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of I 974°J, a bond for keeping peace for good
behaviour. (II) stand cancelled, ifthe no-objection certificate is cancelled by the authority
issuing the same or District Magistrate or the State Government in accordance with rule
H 115. (III) be liable to be suspended or cancelled by an order of the licensing authority
ARJUN GOPALAND ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 823

store and sell explosives could be suspended or cancelled. Sub-Rule(S) A
thereof specifically confers on the Central Government a power to
suspend or cancel a license ifit considt.:rs that it is in public interest. This
provision also makes it clear that an opportunity to hear the licensee
could be dispensed with ifthe Central Government considers that in
public interest. This Court finds that the grave air quality situation in B
NCR is one such case, v.-he1e this Court, can intervene and suspend the
licenses to store and sell fireworks in the NCR. We direct the Central
Governmentto:-
(i) Suspend all such licenses as permit sale of fireworks,
wholesale and retail within the territory ofNCR. c
(ii) The suspension shall remain in force till fmtherorders ofthis
Court.
(iii) No such licenses shall be granted or renewed till further
orders.
20. In addition to the above, we direct the CPCB to study and D
prepare a repo11 on the harmful effects of the materials which are
currently being used in the manufacture of fireworks. The report shall
be submitted within a period of three months to this Court.
Divya Pandey Directions issued.
E
for any contravention of the Act or these rules or of any condition contained in such
licence, or by order of the Central Government, if it is satisfied that there are sufficient
grounds for doing so: Provided that before suspending or cancelling a licence under this
rule, the holder of the licence shall be given an opportunity of being heard. (2) The
suspension or cancellation shall take effect from the date specified therein. (3) An order
of suspension or revocation ofa licence shall be deemed lc1 have been served if sent by
post to the 8ddress of1hc licensee entered in the licence. (4) The suspension of a licence F
shall not debar the ho!Jer of the licence from applying for the renewal. (5)
Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (I), an opportunity of being heard
may not be given to the holder of the licence before his licence is suspended or cancelled
in cases---{i) where the licence is suspended by a licensing authority as an interim
measure for violation of any of the provisions of the Act or these rules or of any
conditions contained in such licence and in his opinion such violation is likely to cause
imminent danger to the public: Provided that where a licence is so suspended, the
G
lice11';ing authority shall give the holder of the licence an opportunity of being heard
before the order of suspension is confirmed; or (ii) where the licence is suspended or
cancelled by the Central Government, if that Government considers that in the public
interest or in the iaterest of the security of the State, such opportunity should not be
given. (6) A licensing authority or the Central Government suspending or cancelling a
licence shall record its reason for so doing in writing. H