Rajkumar Agrawal v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPC No. 2714 of 2018 • Kanhaiyalal Agrawal S/o Late Suwalal Agrawal Aged About 54 Years R/o Lakhe Nagar Dhal Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

2. District Magistrate, Office Of The Collector, Raipur, Chhattisgarh WPC No. 2717 of 2018 • Vishwas Agrawal S/o Late Suwalal Agrawal Aged About 45 Years R/o Badhaipara Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhavan, Naya Raipur District Raipur,

2. District Magistrate Office Of The Collector Raipur, Chhattisgarh WPC No. 2719 of 2018 • Sanjay Agrawal S/o Late Kedar Agrawal Ajged About 47 Years R/o Tillu Chowk, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhavan, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur,

2. District Magistrate Office Of The Collector, Raipur, Chhattisgarh WPC No. 2720 of 2018 • Rajkumar Agrawal S/o S.L. Agrawal Aged About 40 Years R/o Gondwara, Ring Road Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

2. District Magistrate Office Of The Collector, Raipur Chhattisgarh WPC No. 2729 of 2018 • Rajesh Agrawal S/o Late Manoharlal Agrawal Aged About 48 Years R/o Phool Chowk Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhavan Naya Raipur District Raipur

2. District Magistrate Office Of The Collector, Raipur Chhattisgarh WPC No. 2732 of 2018 • Rupendra Daga S/o Late Ratan Daga Aged About 32 Years R/o Kankalipara Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

2. District Magistrate, Office Of The Collector, Raipur Chhattisgarh For Petitioners Ms. Fouzia Mirza, Advocate For Respondent-State Shri Shashank Thakur, GA Hon'ble Justice Mr. Prashant Kumar Mishra Order On Board 09/10/2018 1.

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. She 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.

2.

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 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 Nirala