Mubarik Husain and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Mubarik Husain and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Liberty to the petitioner to file for a fresh licence for a different location, with a direction that the licensing authority shall not take into consideration the impugned cancellation order and shall decide the new application strictly in accordance with law on its own merits.

Issue for consideration

Whether the cancellation of the petitioner's firecracker-manufacturing licence without affording him an opportunity of hearing constituted a violation of natural rights/natural justice. +1 more

Ratio / Principle

Because the licence had expired by the efflux of time before the petition was filed, the writ petition was technically rendered infructuous, as even a judicial restoration could not put back in time the period of the licence.

Key takeaways

The petitioner was granted liberty to file for a fresh licence for a different location; the licensing authority was directed not to take into consideration the cancellation order impugned in this case, and any such application for a licence at a new location was to be decided strictly in accordance with law on its own merits.ratio¶17

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Atul Sreedharan, J. and Anish Kumar Gupta, J.), WRIT - C No. 37108 of 2025, disposed of on November 17, 2025. Impugned action: cancellation on 13.11.2024 by respondent no.2 of licence no. 126 of 2014 for manufacture of firecrackers, on the ground that the facility stood amid a heavily populated area posing a health hazard, with an earlier fire at the premises also recorded. Petitioner's complaint of denial of opportunity of hearing (natural justice violation) was not separately adjudicated: the Court found the licence had already expired by efflux of time before the petition was filed, rendering the petition technically infructuous since restoration could not put back in time the licence period. The petitioner was given liberty to apply for a fresh licence at a different location; the licensing authority was directed not to factor in the impugned cancellation order and to decide the fresh application strictly in accordance with law on its own merits.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

WRIT - C No. - 37108 of 2025

Mubarik Husain And Another

.....Petitioner(s)

	Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others	.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Anurag Shrivastava
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: C.S.C.

Court No. - 35

(SL No.45)

HON'BLE ATUL SREEDHARAN, J. HON'BLE ANISH KUMAR GUPTA, J.

The impugned order passed by the respondent no.2 was on 13.11.2024 to cancel the license bearing number 126 of 2014 held by the petitioner for the manufacturing of firecrackers. The ground for cancellation was that the manufacturing facility was on a plot of land which was in the midst of a heavily populated area and therefore was posing a health hazard to the persons residing in the vicinity. The cancellation order also reflects that earlier there was an instance of fire in the said premises.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the act of cancellation on the grounds that no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner and therefore there was violation of natural rights.

Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has submitted that the petition itself has been filed belatedly beyond the period of subsistence of the license. He has submitted that the license had already expired before the petition itself was filed.

To this, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he had no other option as the license was cancelled improperly during its subsistence.

As the license itself has expired by the efflux of time, the petition has technically been rendered infructuous as even the restoration by the Court

WRIC No. 37108 of 2025

2

cannot put back in time the petitioner, as the period of the license itself has expired.

Under the circumstances, the petitioner is given the liberty of filing for a fresh license for a different location and the licensing authority shall not take into consideration the cancellation order that has been passed and impugned in this case, by the respondent no.2, and that the said application for renewal of license at a new location shall be decided strictly in accordance with law on its own merits.

With the above, this petition stands disposed of .

(Anish Kumar Gupta,J.) (Atul Sreedharan,J.)

November 17, 2025

Shubham Arya

Digitally signed by :- SHUBHAM ARYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad