1 2025:CGHC:21213 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2413 of 2025 1 - Ahmad Raza S/o Late Ismail Raza Aged About 46 Years R/o Old Bus Stand, Near Punjabi Gurudwara, Dhamtari, Tahsil - Dhamtari, District- Dhamtari (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - The Secretary, Panchayat Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Commissioner Raipur Division, Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) 3 - The Collector Dhamtari, District- Dhamtari (C.G.) 4 - The Sub-Divisional Magistrate Dhamtari, District- Dhamtari (C.G.) 5 - The Superintendent Of Police Dhamtari, District- Dhamtari (C.G.) 6 - The Station House Officer Police Station - Civil Line, Rudri, Dhamtari, District- Dhamtari (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. R. S. Patel, Advocate For State/Respondent/s : Ms. Upasana Mehta, Dy. Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 08/05/2025 1. Heard Mr. R. S. Patel, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Ms. Upasana Mehta, learned Dy. Government Advocate for the State/respondent/s. RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI Digitally signed by RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI Date: 2025.05.12 19:50:45 +0530 2 2. By this instant petition, the petitioner prays for following relief/s : “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ and set-aside the impugned order dated 25.02.2025 (Annexure P/1) issued by the respondent no. 2 (The Commissioner), in the interest of justice. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ and remit the matter back to the Collector as well as direct the respondent no. 3 (The Collector) to pass an speaking order & permit the petitioner to run the factory, till final decision of the Collector, in the interest of justice or permit to run the factory in alternative place, as mentioned in the lease agreement, in the interest of justice. 10.3 Any other relief which the Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper under the facts and circumstances may also be provided to the petitioners.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is challenging the impugned order dated 25.02.2025 (Annexure P/1) wherein the respondent No. 2/the Commissioner had adopted a very lackadaisical approach by not passing the speaking order rejected the appeal which was arisen of the order of the respondent No.3/The Collector, who has directly cancelled the license no. 06/DM/DMT/07 of the petitioner vide order dated 12.07.2023 without any reasons or proper explanations. It is also submitted that the Fire Crackers Factory of the petitioner is situated at Village- Barari, Dhamtari (C.G.). The villagers- Barari made an objection before the Collector, Dhamtari with respect to the functioning of the petitioner's Fire Crackers Factory in their 3 village. Thereafter, the Members of the Gram Vikas Committee, Barari agreed and issued the No Objection Certificate dated 24.06.2023 in favour of the petitioner stating that the said factory should be shifted elsewhere, within a period of 01 years, till then the committee has no objection. Meaning thereby, for period of one year, the said factory may function at present place. On 12.06.2023, the show cause notice was issued to the petitioner in reference to the objection made by the Members of the Gram Vikas Committee, Barari and it was further stated that due to fire caught in the factory, the explosion/blast took place in the petitioner's factory, resulting to which certain house of the villages got adversely affected. Therefore, the proper explanation was sought within a period of 03 days. Thereafter on 16.06.2023, the petitioner sent the reply of the aforesaid show cause notice and stated that the said factory is running since generation and he is 03rd generation, who is running the factory and the factory is situated far away from the village. Moreover, the license has been obtained in accordance with law. The incidence of fire caught in the factory could be done deliberately by an anonymous person, just to false implicate and to tarnished the reputation of the petitioner's factory, so that the factory could be permanently closed. Upon which the respondent No.3/the Collector had adopted a very lackadaisical approach by not passing the speaking order and directly cancelled the said license of the petitioner vide order dated 12.07.2023 without any reasons or 4 proper explanations. The respondent No.2/the Commissioner has passed the order just like the respondent No.3/the Collector ought to have passed a speaking order with proper reasons instead of directly cancelling the said license of the petitioner as the said factory is running since generations and the petitioner is of 3rd generation, to run the factory and the factory is situated far away from the village. The said factory is the only source of income of the petitioner and the workers working in the said factory. The act of the respondent authorities are colorable exercise of power which is violation of Article 14 & 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. In the present scenario, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per order dated 25.02.2025 passed by Commissioner, Raipur Division, he proposes to shift the factory/godown in which the fire-crackers are being kept as it is in a densely populated area, however he submits that since he is having accommodation for the factory and well storage of fire- crackers, as such, concerned authority may be directed to consider the same and to pass an appropriate orders so that he may shift his factory/godown to some other place which is not within the ambit of population and in support, he has also annexed copy of agreement (Annexure P/11). 4. Learned counsel for the respondent-State opposed the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that he has not complied the orders of the respondent authorities 5 within the time period provided to him as the the factory/godown is situated in a densely populated area. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the material available on record. 6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of this case, the writ petition at this juncture stands disposed of directing the concerned respondent authority to consider the application/representation of the petitioner and to pass appropriate order in accordance with law within an outer limit of 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. Further, the earlier orders passed by concerned authorities will not come in the way, as the petitioner himself wants to shift the factory/godown from the place from where it is at present situated. 7. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case, the concerned respondent authorities are required to pass an appropriate order on merits in accordance with law. 8. With the aforesaid observation(s) and direction(s), the present petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Ravi Mandavi