K.H. Naaz vs State Of Chhattisgarh 31 Wpc/2661/2018 ... on 26 September, 2018

[Cites 2, Cited by 10]

Chattisgarh High Court

K.H. Naaz vs State Of Chhattisgarh 31 Wpc/2661/2018 ... on 26 September, 2018

Bench: Prashant Kumar Mishra

                                1

                                                              NAFR

    HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR



                     WPC No. 2673 of 2018



 K.H. Naaz S/o Hussain Ali, Aged About 61 Years, Proprietor-
  Shree Hussainee Shop, R/o Pety Line Golbazar Raipur, District-
  Raipur, Chhattisgarh

                                                     ---- Petitioner

                            Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of
   Home, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhavan, Naya Raipur, District-
   Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

2. District Magistrate,    Office    Of   The    Collector,   Raipur,
   Chhattisgarh.

                                                   ---- Respondent

WPC No. 2661 of 2018  Manish Kumar Sahu S/o Babulal Sahu Aged About 50 Years R/o Banjari Road Golbazar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh

---- Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Home, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhavan, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2. District Magistrate Office Of The Collector, Raipur, Chhattisgarh

---- Respondent WPC No. 2663 of 2018  Amit Kumar Sharma S/o Nandkishore Sharma Aged About 36 Years R/o Godwara Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

---- Petitioner 2 Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Home, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhavan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2. District Magistrate Office Of The Collector, Raipur, Chhattisgarh

---- Respondent WPC No. 2664 of 2018  Bhanuprasad S/o Doulatram Sahu, Aged About 42 Years R/o Bajrang Nagar Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

---- Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Home, Mantralaya,, Mahanadi Bhavan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2. District Magistrate Office Of The Collector, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

---- Respondent WPC No. 2674 of 2018  Abdul Fahim S/o Abdul Mazid, Aged About 47 Years R/o Line, Golbazar, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh

---- Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary,department Of Home, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhavan, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgrah.

2. District Magistrate Office Of The Collector, Raipur, Chhattisgarh

---- Respondent WPC No. 2689 of 2018 3  Arvind Agrawal S/o Govind Sahay Agrawal Aged About 28 Years R/o Lakhe Nagar Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

---- Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Home, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhavan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

2. District Magistrate Office Of The Collector, Raipur, Chhattisgarh

---- Respondent WPC No. 2692 of 2018  Abdul Zubair S/o Abdul Bashir Aged About 35 Years R/o Santoshi Nagar, Tikrapara Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

---- Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Home , Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhavan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2. District Magistrate Office Of The Collector, Raipur, Chhattisgarh

---- Respondent WPC No. 2693 of 2018  Pitamber Kodwani S/o G.S. Kodwani Aged About 59 Years R/o Sant Kanwar Ram Chowk Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

---- Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Home, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhavan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

2. District Magistrate, Office Of The Collector, Raipur Chhattisgarh

---- Respondent 4 For Petitioners Mrs. Fouzia Mirza, Advocate For Respondent /State Mr. AS Kachhwaha, Additional Advocate General Order On Board By Hon'ble Mr. Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra 26/9/2018

1. Heard.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners' application for renewal of explosive license is not even received for consideration by respondent No.2 i.e. the District Magistrate, Raipur, even though the petitioners had already deposited the requisite charges including the license fee. He would refer to the orders passed by this Court in WPC No.2422 of 2017 (Fataka Vyapari Sangh Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and another) decided on 5.9.2017 as well as WPC No.706 of 2016 (Manish Kumar Sahu and others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others) and other connected petitions, decided on 13.5.2016, to argue that the respondents are obligated in law to consider petitioners' application for renewal of explosive license.

3. Considering the entire facts situation of the case, particularly in view of the orders passed by this Court in the above writ petitions, the present writ petitions are disposed of with a 5 direction to respondent No.2 to receive the petitioners' application for renewal of explosive license as and when it is presented and thereafter, decide the same by a reasoned order expeditiously, preferably within a period of one month from the date of receipt of application for renewal of license.

Sd/-

(Prashant Kumar Mishra) Judge Shyna

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Chattisgarh High Court