OBJECTIONS to the draft amendments in the Explosives Rules, 2008

AS PROPOSED IN THE MoCI (DIPP) NOTIFICATION NO. G.S.R. 1440(E) DATED 20.11.2017
Sl Page/Para /
Proposal in the Draft Rules
No. Rule Ref. No.
1 Page-44 6(c)(ii) proviso shall be omitted.
Para-6(c)(ii) The said existing proviso reads –
Rule-10(5)
“Provided that nothing in this rule shall apply
to handling of explosives during the dark
hours if proper illumination is provided in the
area and the place is guarded”.
2 Page-45 10(g) after sub-rule (4), the following sub-rule
Para-10(g) shall be inserted, namely:-
Rule-15 “4(A). The batch number and date of
(4A) manufacturing of fireworks shall be printed on
each inner package of fireworks”.
Objection / Correction
Justification
suggested
The said existing proviso may
not be omitted but changed as :- The loading of finished goods in lorries or trucks in front of the licensed fireworks
magazines, in the dark hours, is quite unavoidable in the Fireworks Industry. Mostly the
“Provided that nothing in this lorries or trucks collect the fireworks goods in piece-meal, that is as sundry consignments,
rule shall apply to handling of from various magazines belonging to various licensees. Very often, the vehicles have to
fireworks during the dark hours move from one magazine to another in the dark hours only because of the time involved in
if proper illumination is provided loading the consignments from various magazines in various villages, located far away from
in the area and the place is each other.
guarded”.
The said proposal may be
deleted from the Draft Rules Already Rule-15(1)(i) prescribes as follows :-
since there is no need to insert “Date of manufacture and batch number”.
the new sub-rule 4(A).
Duplication of the existing sub-rule by inserting the new 15(4A) may be avoided.

3 Page-45 11. In the principal rules, in rule-20, in sub- The said proposal may be Presently, in the principal rules, Schedule-VII,
Para-11 rule(1), after the words “licensed factory”, the deleted from the Draft Rules. in the Specification-3 (1)A(b) prescribed for a fireworks factory, Chemical Mixing/Filling
Rule-20(1) words “including fireworks manufacturing buildings are to be provided with blast walls and specification for such blast wall is given
factory” shall be inserted; under Specification-3(1)C.

The other process sheds in a fireworks factory, transit sheds, storehouses, magazines, etc.
do not require blast walls.

Now this proposal to insert “including fireworks manufacturing factory” is quite unrealistic
and it is an impossibility.

Traverse or Mound as defined under Rule-2(58) and specified in Schedule-VII under

Specifications-1 & 2 are for High Explosives only clearly marked in the caption as “other
than fireworks”. Here traverse walls are specified for factories other than fireworks.

Specification-3 is for Fireworks which prescribes blast walls for Chemical Mixing/Filling
buildings.

1

4 Page-45,46 14(d) after sub-rule (4), the following sub-rules
Para-14(d) shall be inserted, namely:-
Rules-24(5) “(5) A person or a firm or a company holding a
and 24(6) licence to manufacture or possession for sale
or use of explosives shall make necessary
arrangement for generating, printing barcodes
on packages and cartridges of explosives and
suitable scanners to read barcodes and shall
also develop necessary information
technology set up as advised by the licensing
authority.
(6) The licensees holding licences to possess
for sale or use of explosives shall make
OBJECTIONS to the draft amendments in the Explosives Rules, 2008
AS PROPOSED IN THE MoCI (DIPP) NOTIFICATION NO. G.S.R. 1440(E) DATED 20.11.2017
This proposal to provide “substantial mound walls” surrounding each and every process
building, drying platform, transit shed, store-house, packing shed, magazine, etc. is objected
as unwanted, unrealistic, impractical or impossible, rendering all the fireworks factories
closed on a single day. If each and every building in a fireworks factory is to be surrounded
by substantial mound walls, there is no possibility of carrying out manufacturing operations
or any supervision.
The proposed ‘substantial mound walls’ in a fireworks factory seems beyond imagination
since such a factory cannot be constructed considering the cost of such construction.
Also, there should be a clear line drawn between SAFETY and IMPOSSIBILITY. ‘Safety’ when
stretched beyond a limit, it becomes an ‘impossibility’. In the name of safety,
impracticalities may not be inserted in the rules.
Also, this proposal is ultra vires the principal rules in as much as it is totally contrary to the
Specifications under Schedule-VII
for explosives factories (traverse/mound) and
for fireworks factories(blast walls for chemical rooms)
The proposal unnecessarily introduces a lot of chaos, confusions and contradictions in the
principal rules and hence may be deleted.
Fireworks may be exempted There are more than 800 fireworks factories in Sivakasi of Tamilnadu and another 600
suitably from these sub-rules factories all over India. The number of fireworks varieties manufactured varies from 10 (in
24(5) and 24(6) as under :- smaller units) to 300 (in medium and bigger units). This is unlike the high-explosives sector,
where only a few varieties are manufactured.
“(5) A person or a firm or a
company holding a licence to Generating and printing barcodes for all these varieties and providing scanners to read
manufacture or possession for these barcodes is highly impossible for this handmade cottage industry which employs
sale or use of explosives (other mostly uneducated and unskilled workers.
than fireworks)…..
Also, fireworks being a ‘low hazard explosive’, such rigid control mechanisms through
(6) The licensees holding sophisticated bar-codes may not be introduced or insisted.
licences to possess for sale or
use of explosives (other than Necessary exemption for fireworks may therefore be inserted in the new sub-rules (5) and
2
 OBJECTIONS to the draft amendments in the Explosives Rules, 2008
AS PROPOSED IN THE MoCI (DIPP) NOTIFICATION NO. G.S.R. 1440(E) DATED 20.11.2017
necessary arrangement to procure suitable fireworks)………. (6) of the principal rule-24.
scanners to read barcodes, and shall also
develop necessary information technology set
up within such time as may be specified by the
Chief Controller.”
5 Page-46 15(a) The said proposal may be
Para-15(a) In the principal rules, in rule 26, - deleted from the Draft Rules. This proposal provides for application of “Safety Management Plan” detailed under the
Rule-26(2) in sub-rule(2), principal rule-26(3) to fireworks factories also, contrary to the principal Rule-26(2)(g) which
in clause (g), states that “Safety Management Plan” is to be followed by factories manufacturing high
after the words "blasting accessories", the explosives or blasting accessories only.
words “or fireworks” shall be inserted;
This is again a case of stretching ‘safety’ beyond a limit to make it an ‘impossibility’. Safety
Management Plan under Rule-26(3) (a) to (u) are sophisticated and are applicable for high
explosives only. The fireworks industry is in the cottage sector employing unskilled and
uneducated workers in the rural villages. A simple form of training through awareness
classes, as is being done, is adequate enough.

This proposal is very harsh on the fireworks industry. The Fireworks Industry is already
suffering due to the stringent “Explosives Rules” being treated at par with high explosives.

If the exempting provisions already provided in the principal rules, which exempt fireworks
from the harsh/impractical rules, are taken away one by one, the Fireworks Industry is sure
to perish, not able to meet these rigid requirements.

This is another proof that the Fireworks Industry, in order to survive, requires a separate set
of “Fireworks Rules” as is prevalent in other countries like the UK.

6 Page-48 (a)In sub-rule (2), for the word “three”, the The said proposal may be Although the proposal intends to increase the inter-distance between sheds from 3M to
Para-30(a) word “ fifteen” shall be substituted. deleted from the Draft Rules. 15M considering the aspects of safety, the large open spaces of 15 metres are likely to be
Rule-84 used for stocking of fireworks goods only. Since there is no proper supervision over the
temporary shops, any accident may end up in disasters because of the excess quantity
stored. Hence the inter-distance of 3M shall be maintained.

7 Page-51 45(b)(ii) against item (f), in column (4), for the The said proposal may be A. The proposal aims to transfer the powers of the PESO to the District Magistrates in
Para-45(b)(ii) existing entries the following entries shall be deleted from the Draft Rules. as much as grant of licence for fireworks shops (under Article-5(f) of Schedule-IV
3
 OBJECTIONS to the draft amendments in the Explosives Rules, 2008
AS PROPOSED IN THE MoCI (DIPP) NOTIFICATION NO. G.S.R. 1440(E) DATED 20.11.2017
substituted, namely:- "District Magistrate"; Part-1) with a capacity not exceeding 300 kgs of fireworks and 1200 kgs of sparkers
or chorsa crackers. Term of licence – not more than 10 years. (Rule-106)

B. Already the District Magistrates are vested with powers under the principal rules to
grant licenses (under Article-5(b) of Schedule-IV Part-1) for fireworks shops in a
quantity not exceeding 100 kgs of fireworks and 500 kgs of sparklers or chorsa
crackers. Term of licence – not more than 10 years (Rule-106)

C. Also, the District Magistrates are vested with powers under the principal rules, to
grant licenses for temporary shops (in sheds of non flammable material / maximum
50 shops in a cluster) for possession and sale of fireworks during festivals (under
Rule-84) for a period not exceeding 30 days (Rule-106)

Now it is a matter of deep concern that the District Magistrates are not capable of granting
fireworks shop licenses as evidenced over the past three years. Almost all the District
Magistrates who are more than 650 in number all over India are not granting any fireworks
selling licence; and even if the licenses are granted, they are for only 2 days before the
festival.

The District Magistrates are over-burdened by their duties and responsibilities like (i) Crime
(ii) Law and Order (iii) Land administration (iv) Agriculture (v) District welfare (vi) security to
VIP’S, etc.

Taking the plea that the PESO is over-burdened and under-staffed to continue with the
grant of fireworks shop licenses (under Article-5(f) of Schedule-IV Part-1), renders the
fireworks industry “to jump out from the pan into the oven”. Already all the District
Authorities are reluctant to issue any fireworks selling licence because they do not want to
shoulder the responsibility and also because they are poorly endowed with limited
personnel as against their voluminous responsibilities.

Entrusting the entire sales channel of the Fireworks Industry to the District Magistrates will
render the Fireworks Industry Extinct with immediate effect.

Already several licenses granted by PESO and several hundred granted by the District
Magistrates are lying suspended or cancelled due to the instigation of various courts; and
4
 OBJECTIONS to the draft amendments in the Explosives Rules, 2008
AS PROPOSED IN THE MoCI (DIPP) NOTIFICATION NO. G.S.R. 1440(E) DATED 20.11.2017
also due to the fear of the officers to shoulder the responsibility in granting fireworks selling
licenses.

Also, most of the District Magistrates do not know their powers in relation to grant of
fireworks selling licenses. They do not also know what are the parameters to verify before
grant of such licenses.

A Comprehensive Table showing the Modalities in granting fireworks shop licenses, under
the Categories A,B,C above, the time-line to be adopted in calling for applications, for
scrutiny and issue of licence thereof, the respective licensing authorities, the specifications,
term of licence, etc. may be inserted in the Rules separately.

The sales channel for the Fireworks Industry is already blocked by the reluctant licensing
authorities. Anymore delegation of powers to the District Magistrates, as is being proposed
now, is sure to wipe out the Fireworks Industry in no-time.

8 Page-73 E(a) in item (b), for the word “shop”, the The said proposal may be The District Magistrate is already empowered to give licenses to fireworks shops of pucca
Para-E(a) words “ temporary shop during festivals” shall deleted from the Draft Rules. construction under Rule-83, read with Rule-106 and Schedule-IV / Part-1 /Article-5(b) for a
Schedule-V be substituted; period not exceeding 10 years. (please see 7 above).
Part-3
Form-LE-5 For several decades since the inception of the rules, the District Magistrates are licensing
pucca shops for a quantity lesser than that granted by the Department of Explosives or
PESO. The quantity restriction presently is 300+1200 kgs for PESO and 100+500 kgs for the
District Magistrates.

The proposed change in the Form L-5 restricts the powers of the District Magistrates to only
‘temporary fireworks shops granted for a period not exceeding 30 days before festivals’.

The fate of the erstwhile licenses for pucca fireworks shops, granted by the District
Authorities in a quantity not exceeding 100+500 kgs is a matter of great concern for the
Industry. By this proposal, all these licenses will go invalid overnight.

Therefore there is no need for this proposal and it may be deleted from the Draft Rules.

9 Page-74 (v) in PART 4, in 'CONDITIONS OF VARIOUS The Industry welcomes this The good name of the Fireworks Industry is being undermined by the illegal activities of the
5
 OBJECTIONS to the draft amendments in the Explosives Rules, 2008
AS PROPOSED IN THE MoCI (DIPP) NOTIFICATION NO. G.S.R. 1440(E) DATED 20.11.2017
Para-(v)(a) LICENCES',- proposal. But the proposal is manufacturers licensed by the District Magistrates in LE-1 under Article 1(a) of Schedule-IV /
Schedule-IV (a) in Set-I, in the opening paragraph, after the not complete. Part-1.
Part-4 words "manufacture fireworks", the words
“other than aerial fireworks” shall be In this Set-I, in the caption, after
Although this category of licence is for manufacture of 15 kgs of fireworks or gunpowder,
inserted; the words granted by, the words these factories licensed by the District Magistrates are manufacturing 2000 kgs each day,
“District Magistrate” may be including aerial items, multi shots and colour pellets, making use of the godowns, bullock
substituted by “the Controller of sheds, tree shades and open ground under temporary roofs. There is no supervision from
Explosives”. the side of the licensing authority, namely the District Magistrate, since the authority has no
time. The dangerous operations are going on over past 10 years with the knowledge of the
Consequently in Schedule-IV, Revenue Authorities and the Police, reasons obvious.
Part-1. Article 1(a), in Column-4,
the Licensing Authority “District The Fireworks Industry prays that for its own interest and in the interests of the
Magistrate” may be substituted Government of India and the General Public, the powers erstwhile lying with the District
by “Controller of Explosives”. Magistrates may be transferred to the PESO as far as manufacture is concerned.

All the powers relating to manufacture of gunpowder or fireworks or any explosives shall
TOTALLY vest with the Department of Explosives / PESO. The District Magistrates who do
not have the time, or expertise or personnel to inspect these manufacturing premises, may
be deprived of their powers to issue manufacturing licenses in LE-1 under Article 1(a) of
Schedule-IV / Part-1; and they may be restricted to issue of NOC’s only.

10 Page-74 24(e) Fireworks factories registered under the The said proposal may be There are various contradictions between the Factories Act & Rules and Explosives Act &
Para-(f) Factories Act 1948 shall employ Safety Officer deleted from the Draft Rules. Rules. For example, there is a grave difference between the two rules as to who is (a)
in accordance with the said Act and relevant foreman and (b) supervisor. The foremen declared competent under the Explosives Rules
Set-II Rules. However, the Fireworks factories not are not eligible to be a supervisor under the Factories Rules. The basis on which number of
Conditions registered under the Factories Act, shall foremen/supervisors are to be appointed, their educational qualifications, specifications for
24(e) appoint one of the supervisors as nodal safety the factory buildings, etc. are all matters of controversy.
officer of the factory;
The Fireworks Industry prays that the Explosives Rules may not refer to any other Act or
Rules to avoid chaos or confusion. If a Safety officer is prescribed under the Factories Act,
let it be subjected to the domain of that particular Act/Rule/Department. Already many
draft notifications under the Factory Rules are subjudice in the Court of Law. Such
proposals to link the provisions of other Acts and Rules will lead to confusions and chaos
harming the Industry unjustifiably.

6

11 Page-74 24(f) Smoothened pathways connecting all the
Para-(f) manufacturing facilities shall be provided for
Set-II the safe movement of trolley or low-level carts
Conditions transporting finished or semi finished
24(f) fireworks or ingredients.”
12 Page-76 (j) in Set XI,- (i) for the opening paragraph,
Para-(j) the following opening paragraph shall be
Set-XI substituted, namely:-
Conditions
"The following are the conditions of licence
number-----------to possess and sell from a
temporary shop during festivals, at any one
time, not exceeding 100 kilogrammes of
manufactured fireworks of class 7 division 2
sub-division 2; and 500 kilogrammes of Chorsa
crackers or sparklers in Form LE-5 [Article 5(b)]
granted by District Magistrate.";
13 Page-77 The sheds for possession and sale of fireworks
Para-(14) shall be at a distance of at least fifteen metres
OBJECTIONS to the draft amendments in the Explosives Rules, 2008
AS PROPOSED IN THE MoCI (DIPP) NOTIFICATION NO. G.S.R. 1440(E) DATED 20.11.2017
The said proposal may be This is a condition which has been debated for more than a year with the CCE, PESO and in
deleted from the Draft Rules. the DIPP, MoCI.
If required, a condition reading Seeing the fireworks factories in China which are constructed on the mountain slopes,
“the open space between which were provided with necessary pathways connecting various sheds, in order to even-
various sheds and other facilities out the slopes, the then CCE of PESO imposed this as a condition after the Accident in
shall be deprived of any OmSakthi Fireworks in Mudalipatti on 05/09/2012.
obstructions in the form of
stones, weeds or shrubs, This was inserted into the Recommendations of the Inquiry Report also which caused
enabling smooth passage of low- serious repercussions to the industry. The ‘smooth pathway’ was given an interpretation as
level carts transporting a raised platform of concrete and cement. The Industry agitated with scientific reports that
ingredients or fireworks. the smoothened pathways, as interpreted by the then CCE, really will cause disasters. Now
also, the ‘smoothened pathway’ can be interpreted anyway to cause insurmountable
hardships to the industry.
When the proposal is for only a ‘smoothened pathway’, it is suggested by the Industry that
the following words :- “the entire open space between all sheds and platforms shall be kept
clean, deprived of stones, weeds and shrubs to promote smooth passage of carts” will make
the entire premises neat and tidy.
The said proposal may be The principal rules are very clear that the District Magistrates are empowered to issue
deleted from the Draft Rules. licenses to pucca fireworks shops (under Article-5(b) of Schedule-IV Part-1) in a quantity not
This creates confusion and exceeding 100+500 kgs. for a term not exceeding 10 years ;
chaos in the principal rules.
and also to
temporary fireworks shops, (sheds of non-flammable material) for festivals, in a quantity
not exceeding 100+500 kgs. (under Rule-84) for a period not exceeding 30 days.
SET-XI may be retained as it is.
THE NEW SET OF CONDITIONS NOW PROPOSED FOR THE TEMPORARY LICENSES GRANTED
UNDER RULE-84, MAY BE GIVEN A SEPARATE HEADING AND DIFFERENT SET NUMBER.
The said proposal may be The old set of conditions may be retained since they are prescribed for Licenses to pucca
deleted from the Draft Rules. fireworks shops (under Article-5(b) of Schedule-IV Part-1) in a quantity not exceeding
7

Set-XI from each other and 50 metres from any
Conditions protected work.
14 Page-80 (c) in specification 3,-
Para-48(c)A.B (a) in serial number 1,-
Schedule-VII
Specification- (A) in the sub-heading ‘C. Blast wall’, after the
3(1)C words and figure, “man limit of 2”, the
words and figures “persons. In case of
filling/pellet loading/shell loading buildings
for aerial fireworks, the height of the blast
wall shall be 2.76 metres and the width shall
be 0.5 metre wider than the door opening on
both sides. The blast wall shall be extended by
90 cm towards the end with a turn angle of 45
degrees. A robust Brass or non-corrodible
metal chicken wired mesh roof shall be
provided covering the shed and the blast wall
in all the directions. Such blast wall shall be
provided around the sheds.” Shall be inserted;
(B) in sub-heading ‘ D. Drying Platform’,-
I. in paragraph 2, after the words and figures
“1 to 1.5 meters”, the words “In case of
rocket/shells with lifting charge, the entire
area of drying platform shall be covered with
hemi-spherical 1mm brass or non-corrodible
metal wire mesh and they shall be hooked to
the ground appropriately to avoid its lifting.”
shall be inserted;
OBJECTIONS to the draft amendments in the Explosives Rules, 2008
AS PROPOSED IN THE MoCI (DIPP) NOTIFICATION NO. G.S.R. 1440(E) DATED 20.11.2017
This creates confusion and 100+500 kgs. for a term not exceeding 10 years ;
chaos in the principal rules.
SET-XI may be retained as it is.
THE NEW SET OF CONDITIONS NOW PROPOSED FOR THE TEMPORARY LICENSES GRANTED
UNDER RULE-84, MAY BE GIVEN A SEPARATE HEADING AND DIFFERENT SET NUMBER.
The said proposals (A) and (B) Although suggested In the name of safety, these proposals are liable to cause disasters.
may be deleted from the Draft
Rules. These proposals were already discussed in many forums including PESO HQ in Nagpur.
A Meeting Minutes, showing how the proposal was vehemently objected to by the Industry
is attached herewith as Annexure- A.
1. The proposal to provide “robust” brass or non-corrodible metal chicken wired mesh
roof around the four sides of the shed, lacks scientific backing.
2. The proposal was first submitted to the CCE, PESO HQ at Nagpur by the Dy.Chief
Controller of Explosives in the Sivakasi office of PESO. Only after receiving
communication in this regard from the CCE, the Industry came to know that an
imaginary Technical Committee which existed only in papers was formed by the
DyCCE. The proposal was presented in the name of the Technical Committee which
stated that manufacturers of fireworks were also members. There were two
professors from Sivakasi colleges owned by fireworks manufactuerers. The DyCCE
called the members for discussions two times to PESO office and there were visits
to two factories. The discussions were of a general nature relating to various
aspects of safety. The testing in the two factories were also of a general nature. In
one occasion, a scientist from CLRI was present; and after that he could not be
seen. The DyCCE got signatures as a matter of routine from the 5 to 6
manufacturers as a token of attendance. These signatures were later interpreted
by the DyCCE as our concurrence to the proposals contained in the Technical
Committee Report. The view of the Scientist on these proposals could not be
obtained. When enquired the DyCCE informed that since the Scientist asked for
one year time to give recommendations, he was not consulted.
3. All the above facts about the proposals and about the fictitious technical committee
were placed before the CCE in Nagpur, in a large gathering of officers and
8
 OBJECTIONS to the draft amendments in the Explosives Rules, 2008
AS PROPOSED IN THE MoCI (DIPP) NOTIFICATION NO. G.S.R. 1440(E) DATED 20.11.2017
manufacturers. Since the PESO did not prepare Minutes of the Meeting, TANFAMA
Sivakasi prepared the Minutes and sent the same to the CCE, Nagpur and to the
Jt.Secretary, DIPP, MoCI. The concerned DyCCE was also in the Meeting and he
could not substantiate that such a Technical Committee really existed. He could
only show the Technical Committee Report reiterating that the signatures obtained
from manufacturers show their concurrence only not mere attendance.

4. What amounts to a “robust” brass is not clear. If such a wire mesh is intended to
prevent flying materials, no testing of any sort has been carried out to see whether
the brass mesh serves its purpose.

5. In the chemical filling/pellet loading sheds for aerial fireworks, the contrivances do
not fly, but they explode in unison. Especially, only rockets provided with sticks will
fly, but the mere shells will only explode. The wire mesh will function only as an
unwanted piece of ornamental decoration for the shed, and will get blown away in
the event of an explosion.

6. In the event of accident, it is seen that fleeing workers are hit by flying stones,
bricks, doors and such other things which travel at high velocity. The death toll
increases only by these flying objects.

7. Now these “robust” or “sturdy” wire meshes fixed on the angle frame are proposed
on the four sides of the shed. In the event of an accident, the roof being strong
with RCC, the explosion hits the weaker walls at an angle exactly where these
frames are proposed to be fixed. The 100 kgs frame with mesh cannot withstand
the explosion travelling in its path. If blown in one piece, these contrivances can kill
a herd of elephants with the weight and velocity; and if shattered due to the
explosion, they will split into spikes, spears and cutting knives slaying the fleeing
workers. This will happen on all the four sides of every room because of the
proposal to provide these contrivances on all sides.

8. there is no way of ensuring that the frame with mesh is secured to withstand an
explosion. No studies have been conducted. There is no precedence in any other
country.

9
 OBJECTIONS to the draft amendments in the Explosives Rules, 2008
AS PROPOSED IN THE MoCI (DIPP) NOTIFICATION NO. G.S.R. 1440(E) DATED 20.11.2017
9. It is proposed that each surrounding wall should be turned at 45 degrees angle on
both ends to prevent flying articles. But at the same time, the workers in the event
of an accident will be obstructed on all the four sides not only because of the walls,
but confused by the walls angling at 45 degrees at 4x2=8 ends of the walls,
narrowing down the path of escape. Also, a fleeing worker will unknowingly run
into the angled walls, losing his chance of escape.

10. The proposal to provide a hemispherical cage with 1mm brass or non-corrodible
metal is imaginary since 1mm thick mesh will not prevent the flying objects nor can
they withstand the temperature or the velocity caused in the event of an explosion.
Again no test or experiment has been made to introduce this 1mm brass cage to
cover the platforms.

11. Again the hemispherical 1mm mesh metal cage for platform will necessarily have
frames to hold the brass mesh. In the event of an accident, they will also be
dismantled and propelled at high velocity on all directions, covering the entire
factory, at an angle of 360 degrees surrounding the place of mishap ending up with
disasters.

12. The Fireworks industry will be ruined by such imaginary measures which turn to be
lethal at the time of accident leading to high death toll.

13. When a proposal given in the name of ‘safety’ is considered as ‘lethal’ by the
veterans of the Industry, it necessitates thorough studies and experimentation
before being made a rule.

14. This proposed amendment is vehemently objected to by the Industry as biased,

dangerous and lethal, leading to many a disaster. It also seems to be intentionally
inserted without any reasoning; since the matter was already discussed in detail in
the HQ Nagpur of PESO, and no authority could answer to the relevant questions
raised by the industry about the dangers involved in this proposal.

15. Please read Annexure-A.

Page-43 2(c) “aerial fireworks” means low hazard 2(c)”aerial fireworks” means low Small pieces like two sound, three sound and flower bombs cannot be treated as aerial
10
 OBJECTIONS to the draft amendments in the Explosives Rules, 2008
AS PROPOSED IN THE MoCI (DIPP) NOTIFICATION NO. G.S.R. 1440(E) DATED 20.11.2017
Para-2(c) explosives, which moves by its own propulsion
hazard fireworks, with a lifting items. Hence this definition proposed by the Industry takes care of the issue.
Rule-24(A) or shots into the sky through a mortar charge and an aerial function
consisting of paper tube or casing filled with
charge to cause sound, multiple Also, aerial consumer fireworks are always confused with display fireworks.
combustible material to deliver sound and sounds, light, colour, any
pyrotechnic effect and includes shells andpyrotechnic effect or a The basic difference is that, display fireworks products are assembled at site; but the aerial
rockets; combination of various effects, consumer fireworks are available in completed form for firing. This should be incorporated
in an assembled form ready to in the rules and definitions, to do away with the confusion between aerial fireworks and
use at the site, including shells display fireworks.
and rockets, but not including
contrivances less than 1” dia or
6” in height like two sound,
three sound or flower bombs.
In all Pages Wherever the words “chinese crackers” are Instead, “firecracker” shall be Chorsa, giant, tukada, mota tukada, etc. are names referring to various sizes of firecrackers.
In all paras used, they shall be replaced by “chorsa used” instead of the proposed The term “chorsa crackers” shall therefore be replaced by “firecrackers”.
And In the crackers” “chorsa crackers”. Fireworks and Firecrackers rhyme well and they are meaningful too.
principal rules

IMPORTANT PROPOSALS ALREADY SUBMITTED TO THE CCE(PESO) AND DIPP FOR INCORPORATION IN THE DRAFT AMENDMENT RULES – BUT OMITTED IN THE PRESENT DRAFT RULES
15 Page : NIL New proposal to be incorporated in rules. Time-line / Part-II The following may be inserted after sub-rule (8) of Rule-107 :-
Para : NIL “(9) Wherever licence is granted in Form LE-5 for possession and sale of fireworks from
as already decided by the PESO, temporary shops, the following time-line shall be followed by the licensing authority :-
DIPP, MoCI, and uploaded in
the Peso website Timeline for fireworks shop licenses including temporary licenses granted by District
Magistrates for possession and sale of fireworks in a fireworks shop under Rule-83 and
shall be inserted in the principal Rule-84 of Explosives Rules.
rule after sub-rule (8) of Rule- Receipt of Applications seeking grant of Renewal of licenses for shops under Rule-83
107. fireworks licenses including temporary shall be in the regular course considering the
licenses in Form LE-5 date of expiry.
For temporary shop licenses under Rule-84,
applications to be called for starting from 60
days before the festival.
Period for which fireworks shop licenses are For fireworks shops under Rule-83, for a

11
 OBJECTIONS to the draft amendments in the Explosives Rules, 2008
AS PROPOSED IN THE MoCI (DIPP) NOTIFICATION NO. G.S.R. 1440(E) DATED 20.11.2017
to be granted for sale of fireworks from period as specified under Rule-106.
shops. For temporary shops under Rule-84, for a
period of not less than 30 days, with a
minimum of 21 days before the Festival.
Issue of sanctioned licenses / or sending Sanctioned licenses shall be issued or
Intimations thereof, to the licensees intimations sent to licensees well in advance
of the licence period.
The reason for the above insertion of Rule 107(9) is that the District Authorities all over the
country are either refusing to grant fireworks shop licenses or reluctantly issue licenses for
the last two days of the festival. Even when the safety distances are duly observed as
prescribed under the Rules, the District Magistrates do not want to shoulder any
responsibility. The statutory powers as prescribed under the Rules are to be exercised by
the District Magistrates. Otherwise, the manufacturing licenses granted by the Licensing
Authorities go waste with the sales channel strangled.

It is to be noted the several thousand fireworks shops, including temporary shops licensed
by the District Magistrates, form the last link in the chain of the trading activity, reaching
the ultimate end-users. The manufactured fireworks will get stagnated everywhere when
there is no time-line prescribed under the Rules for grant of fireworks shop licenses.

Also, the District Magistrates do not respect or follow the time-line prescribed in the form
of Peso circular or found uploaded in the Peso website. The time-line has to be necessarily
incorporated in the rules to make it purposeful by bringing a compulsion on the District
Magistrates to exercise their powers and deliver their duties under the Rules, in granting
fireworks shop licenses.

12
 OBJECTIONS to the draft amendments in the Explosives Rules, 2008
AS PROPOSED IN THE MoCI (DIPP) NOTIFICATION NO. G.S.R. 1440(E) DATED 20.11.2017
16 Page : NIL New proposal to be incorporated in rules. The principal rule is : The principal rule prescribes that a licence for a temporary shop may be given for “the
Para : NIL Rule-106. Period of validity of period deemed necessary but not exceeding 30 days”. Making use of this rule, licenses to
licence.— temporary shops are issued for one or two days before Festival, sometimes after the
The licensing authority may Festival.
grant a licence for the period
deemed necessary but not It is submitted that there are several cases of arbitrary exercise of powers by the licensing
exceeding— authorities when granting temporary licenses to setup temporary firework shops which
(1) causes serious pecuniary loss and hardship to the small time vendors. Licenses are issued
(2) for one or two or three days before festivals and even after the festivals, leading to chaos
(3) and confusion resulting in unsafe conditions resulting in accidents. Therefore, it is
(4) thirty days for temporary imperative that the temporary shop licenses shall be granted for a period of 30 days, with a
fireworks shops minimum of 21 days before festivals.
------
After this, the following may be
inserted :-

with a minimum of twentyone

days before festivals;

13
 OBJECTIONS to the draft amendments in the Explosives Rules, 2008
AS PROPOSED IN THE MoCI (DIPP) NOTIFICATION NO. G.S.R. 1440(E) DATED 20.11.2017
17 Page : NIL New proposal to be incorporated in rules. Time-line / Part-I After Rule-118 in the principal rules, the following may be inserted :-
Para : NIL “Rule-118A – Time-line to be followed by the Licensing authorities :-
as already decided by the PESO, The reason for the above insertion in the principal rules is that the Licensing Authorities do
DIPP, MoCI, and uploaded in not follow the time-line prescribed in the form of circular or found in the Peso website. The
the Peso website – time-line has to be necessarily incorporated in the rules to make it purposeful.

shall be inserted in the principal

Timeline for disposal of various types of cases
rules after Rule-118 as Rule-
Grant of Licence 21 days (on submission of all necessary
118A.
documents)
Conveying Adequacy of
Documents as per check list -
 If delivered by hand  Immediately
 If delivered by post  4 days
Issue of discrepancy letter 7 days
Inspection after suspension of within 7 days of rectification reported by
licence licensee
Revocation/otherwise of within 4 days of inspection
licence after Inspection

14

18 Page : NIL New proposal to be incorporated in rules. In principal Rule-2(48)
Para : NIL “safety distance” means the
distance necessary under these
rules to be kept clear between
any licensed factory shed,
magazines, store house or
other licensed premises and
protected works as referred to
in Schedule VIII;
After “Schedule VIII”
following may be added :-
OBJECTIONS to the draft amendments in the Explosives Rules, 2008
AS PROPOSED IN THE MoCI (DIPP) NOTIFICATION NO. G.S.R. 1440(E) DATED 20.11.2017
The District Magistrates are able to refuse grant of fireworks shop licenses on the ground
that there is no public safety for the reason that (i) the place is thickly populated (ii) there
is heavy vehicular traffic (iii) it is a commercial area crowded with people (iv) it is a
residential area with dwellings nearby, etc. The Authority can say anything to refuse
grant of licence in the name of public safety. This gives raise to corruption and the
genuine applicants are not in a position to obtain a licence although all safety distances
are duly followed.
Safety distances have been prescribed under the principal rules to ensure public safety
only. But in the absence of a clear definition for the meaning and purpose of the safety
the distance, the District Magistrates are able to shirk their responsibility by simply saying
that the public safety is at stake.

“and in Rule-86(2) and Rule- Hence, the insertion as proposed in Column-4 becomes INEVITABLE FOR THE INDUSTRY.
86(3) in order to ensure public
safety;” Please see Annexure-B for the detailed submission.

19 Page : NIL New proposal to be incorporated in rules. In principal Rule-86. Safety The justification has already been made in the preceding point relating to definition for
Para : NIL distance to be maintained. – public safety.

After the above caption, the Please see Annexure-B for the detailed submission.
following may be inserted :-

“In order to ensure public

safety, the following safety
distances shall be followed for
the respective premises”

15
 OBJECTIONS to the draft amendments in the Explosives Rules, 2008
AS PROPOSED IN THE MoCI (DIPP) NOTIFICATION NO. G.S.R. 1440(E) DATED 20.11.2017
20 Page : NIL New proposal to be incorporated in rules. In principal Rule-88. Fireworks There are prudent specifications prescribed in the rules for granting licenses for fireworks
Para : NIL to be sold from licensed magazines, storehouses and fireworks shops, licensed in Form LE-3 and L-5 respectively,
premises only.- on the basis of floor area and stacking height. It goes without saying that there is no scope
—No person shall sell fireworks of storing more than the licensed quantity in the licensed premises.
from any premises other than
When the floor area is restricted and when the stacking height is restricted, it should be
those licensed under these
taken that the weight of the fireworks lying in stock in the magazine, storehouse or
rules.
fireworks shops is within the permitted limits.
After the words ‘under these
But the Authorities are harassing the licensees especially during Diwali that the stocks
rules’, the following may be
exceed the licensed quantity. Weighing of fireworks is quite impossible. As per the
added :-
definition on weight of fireworks, under Rule-16, the weight is “the weight of the
completed article inclusive of the case or contrivance in which the explosives is contained
“It is provided that since all the
but shall not include the weight of the inner package and outer packing box”.
licenses for possession and sale
of fireworks in LE-3 and LE-5 are
granted on the basis of floor
There is no possibility of physically weighing all the fireworks lying in stock in a
area and stacking height, the magazine or storehouse or fireworks shop, removing the inner packaging
weight of fireworks lying in materials and outer packing boxes.
stock within the licensed The Authorities do not even weigh the goods, but suspend the licenses on
premises, stacked to the
assumption. Or, demand RANSOMS in lakhs.
permissible height, may be
taken as conforming to the This leads to large scale corruptions in ALL LEVELS. Especially the Police and the
licensed quantity”. Revenue threaten the licensees of fireworks shops and humiliate them … and
threaten them …

The restriction on floor area and stacking height, prescribed in the rules, takes care of the
storage limit. If the law makers feel that the specifications given by them earlier on the
LICENSED LIMIT, FLOOR AREA, STACKING HEIGHT ARE WRONG, LET THEM DELETE THOSE
RESTRICTIONS IN THE PRINCIPAL RULES. OR, PROTECT THE INDUSTRY FROM CORRUPT
OFFICIALS BY INSERTING THE PROVISO PROPOSED IN COLUMN-4 HEREIN.

Let the honest business-men do their job without interference from the high-handed
activities of THE POLICE AND OTHER LAW ENFORCING AGENCIES.

16
 OBJECTIONS to the draft amendments in the Explosives Rules, 2008
AS PROPOSED IN THE MoCI (DIPP) NOTIFICATION NO. G.S.R. 1440(E) DATED 20.11.2017
21 Page : NIL New proposal to be incorporated in rules. In principal rule-83(4)a The concept of “emergency exit” for fireworks shops was prescribed for the first time In
Para : NIL The following words the Explosives Rules, 1983. From the very inception of the Industry in the 1930’s and until
1983, there was no necessity for a fireworks shop to have an emergency exit.
“and emergency exit from open
air and having doors opening But the (amended) Explosives Rules, 1983 simply stated as –
outwards, if applicable;”
“Rule-135 (3) The premises shall have independent entrance and exit. “
May be replaced by :-
In the 1980’s, the existing shops, which were functioning for more than 30 or 40 years,
“and an emergency exit, if were not having ‘emergency exits’ and there was no possibility of providing an emergency
applicable, from open air and exit unless and until the shop in the end of the row, having access to two roads.
having doors opening
outwards;” The Industry has been representing to the PESO and the DIPP, MoCI, from the year 1983
about these existing old shops where there is no possibility of providing an ‘emergency
It will be more apt, if the words exit’. On the genuine prayer of the Industry they were allowed to function without
are ‘where possible’ instead of insisting on the ‘emergency exit’ all along.
‘if applicable’.
When the rules were amended in 2008, we were assured that the issue relating to
“emergency exit” will be taken care of. Likewise, the rule relating to “emergency exit”
was elaborated in the Explosives Rules, 2008. But the words “if applicable” were wrongly
used and wrongly placed creating confusion. The actual words are to be “where possible”
and they should have been placed as “emergency exit where possible”

An Annexure-C elaborately explaining this aspect is attached herewith.

17