Dismissed

Ramratan Agarwal v. Union of India and Ors.

Rajasthan HC24 Nov 2017CW/12053/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order dismisses multiple writ petitions filed by fire works license holders aggrieved by licence cancellation. The High Court allowed withdrawal with liberty to approach the District Collector to restore licenses on a new location, directing a one-month decision timeline consistent with other license holders remanded by the Divisional Commissioner.

What did the court decide?

Writ petitions dismissed as withdrawn; petitioners granted liberty to approach District Collector for restoration of licenses on a new location; District Collector directed to decide within one month.

Ramratan Agarwal Vs Union of India and Ors. — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2017)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12031 / 2012

¶3

Satish Kumar S/o Sh. Atma Prakash, aged about 56 years, resident of Karni Nagar, Bikaner C/o M/s Prakash General Stor, Dikaner Fire Works, Station Road, Bikaner.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Union of India through its Secretary Department of Explosives, Government of India, New Delhi.

¶7

The District Magistrate, Bikaner.

¶8

The Divisional Commissioner, Bikaner.

¶9

----Respondent

¶10

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12032 / 2012

¶11

Mahesh Kumar S/o Sh. Sanwar Mal, aged about 45 years, resident of Dhobi Talai, Bikaner

¶12

----Petitioner

¶13

Versus

¶14

Union of India through its Secretary Department of Explosives, Government of India, New Delhi.

¶15

The District Magistrate, Bikaner.

¶16

The Divisional Commissioner, Bikaner. ----Respondent

¶17

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12034 / 2012

¶18

Bhanwari Lal S/o Shri Murlidhar Ji, aged about 56 years, R/o Satta Bazzar, Kotgate, Bikaner.

¶19

----Petitioner

¶20

Versus

¶21

Union of India through its Secretary Department of Explosives, Government of India, New Delhi.

¶22

The District Magistrate, Bikaner.

¶23

The Divisional Commissioner, Bikaner.

¶24

----Respondent

¶25

(2 of 6)

¶26

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12044 / 2012

¶27

Narendra Kumar S/o Shri Aatma Prakash Khatri, aged about 55 years, Resident of Vyas Kathla, Toliyanar, Bheruji Ki Gali, Bikaner.

¶28

----Petitioner

¶29

Versus

¶30

Union of India through its Secretary Department of Explosives, Government of India, New Delhi.

¶31

The District Magistrate, Bikaner.

¶32

The Divisional Commissioner, Bikaner.

¶33

----Respondent

¶34

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12053 / 2012

¶35

Ramratan Agarwal S/o Shri Mulchand Agarwal, aged about 52 years, Proprietor of M/s. Mulchand Aasharam, Bedon Ka Chowk, Bikaner.

¶36

----Petitioner

¶37

Versus

¶38

Union of India through its Secretary Department of Explosives, Government of India, New Delhi.

¶39

The District Magistrate, Bikaner.

¶40

The Divisional Commissioner, Bikaner. ----Respondent

¶41

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12061 / 2012

¶42

RatanLal S/o Shri Moochand, aged abut 48 years, M/s Hukamchand Ratan Lal, Fad Bazar, Bikaner.

¶43

----Petitioner

¶44

Versus 1. Union of India through its Secretary Department of Explosives, Government of India, New Delhi.

¶45

The District Magistrate, Bikaner.

¶46

The Divisional Commissioner, Bikaner. ----Respondent

¶47

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12064 / 2012

¶48

(3 of 6)

¶49

Mukesh S/o Shri Ram Chandra Khatri, aged about 36 yers, By caste Khatri, R/o Fad Bazar, Bikaner.

¶50

----Petitioner

¶51

Versus

¶52

Union of India through its Secretary Department of Explosives, Government of India, New Delhi.

¶53

The District Magistrate, Bikaner.

¶54

The Divisional Commissioner, Bikaner. ----Respondent

¶55

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12065 / 2012

¶56

Naresh Kumar S/o Shri Laxman Das Khatri aged about 32 years, by caste Khatri, R/o Fad Bazar, Bikaner.

¶57

----Petitioner

¶58

Versus

¶59

Union of India through its Secretary Department of Explosives, Government of India, New Delhi.

¶60

The District Magistrate, Bikaner.

¶61

The Divisional Commissioner, Bikaner. ----Respondent

¶62

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12066 / 2012

¶63

Laxman Das S/o Shri Khushi Ram, aged about 52 years, M/s. Ramchandra Laxmandas, Fad Bazar, Bikaner.

¶64

----Petitioner

¶65

Versus

¶66

Union of India through its Secretary Department of Explosives, Government of India, New Delhi.

¶67

The District Magistrate, Bikaner.

¶68

The Divisional Commissioner, Bikaner. ----Respondent

¶69

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12072 / 2012

¶70

Smt. Uma Devi W/o Shri Naresh Kumar, aged about 28 years, R/o Fad Bazar, Bikaner.

(4 of 6)

----Petitioner

Versus

Union of India through its Secretary Department of Explosives, Government of India, New Delhi.

¶75

The District Magistrate, Bikaner.

¶76

The Divisional Commissioner, Bikaner. ----Respondent

¶77

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12074 / 2012

¶78

Shekhar Khatri S/o Shri Satish Kumar Khatri, aged about 36 years, resident of Varka Market, Rani Bazar, Bikaner. ----Petitioner

¶79

Versus

¶80

Union of India through its Secretary Department of Explosives, Government of India, New Delhi.

¶81

The District Magistrate, Bikaner.

¶82

The Divisional Commissioner, Bikaner.

¶83

----Respondent S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12045/2012

¶84

Mr. Harish Kumar S/o Shri Ramchandra Devra, aged about 39 years, Resident of Fad Bazar, Bikaner

¶85

____Petitioner

¶86

Versus

¶87

Union of India through its Secretary Department of Explosives, Government of India, New Delhi.

¶88

The District Magistrate, Bikaner.

¶89

The Divisional Commissioner, Bikaner.

¶90

----Respondent

¶91

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. M.S. Purohit

¶92

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rishabh Tayal for Mr. K.L. Thakur, AAG

¶93

(5 of 6)

¶94

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI

¶95

Order

¶96

24/11/2017

¶97

These writ petitions are filed by the petitioners being aggrieved with the order dated 31.10.2012 passed by the District Collector, Bikaner, whereby the permanent licences granted to the petitioners for storing fire works/crackers have been cancelled.

¶98

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that though some of the license holders have preferred these writ petitions, however, some of the license holders have approached the Divisional Commissioner, Bikaner by way of filing appeals and the Divisional Commissioner, Bikaner has disposed of the said appeals vide judgments dated 01.09.2014 and 11.02.2013 and has remanded the matters to the District Collector, Bikaner with a direction to issue the fire works/crackers licences to the applicants on a new location within a period of 15 days.

¶99

Learned counsel for the petitioners has prayed that petitioners be allowed to withdraw these writ petitions with liberty to approach the District Collector, Bikaner with a prayer for restoring their permanent fire works/crackers licences on a new location. It is also prayed that the District Collector be directed to decide the applications filed by the petitioners within stipulated period while taking into consideration the cases of the other license holders who have approached him pursuant to the remand order passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Bikaner.

¶100

Mr. Rishabh Tayal for Mr. K.L. Thakur, AAG has no objection if

¶101

(6 of 6)

¶102

such liberty is granted to the petitioners.

¶103

In view of the above, these writ petitions are dismissed as withdrawn, however, the petitioners will be at liberty to approach the District Collector for restoring their fire works/crackers licenses issued to them on a new location.

¶104

The District Collector is expected to decide the said applications of the petitioners within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the same. It is also expected that the District Collector shall give similar relief to the petitioners as has been provided to other license holders who have approached him pursuant to the remand orders passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Bikaner vide judgments dated 11.02.2013 and 01.09.2014.

¶105

(VIJAY BISHNOI)J.

¶106

Taruna

Ramratan Agarwal v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramratan Agarwal v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sheoganj Coop. Marketing Society Ltd. Vs State and Ors.

Fateh Lal and Ors. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Krishan Kumar and Ors. Vs State and Ors.

Mahesh Kumar Vs Union of India and Ors.

Shekhar Khatri Vs Union of India and Ors.

Bhanwari Lal Vs Union of India and Ors.