← Library
High Court Of ChhattisgarhWPC/2855/2018disposed off

Vijay Kumar Badwani v. State Of Chhattisgarh

2018-10-10Hon'Ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra2 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPC No. 2855 of 2018 • Vijay Kumar Badwani S/o Sufmal Badwani Aged About 52 Years R/o Shankar Nagar, Kali Mata Ward, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgrah ---- 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. 2856 of 2018 • Hemlal Soni S/o Gendlal Soni, Aged About 49 Years R/o Gudiyari Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

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

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

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