[2025:RJ-JP:46767] (1 of 3) [CW-19316/2024] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19316/2024 Deepak Bairathi S/o Shri Lallu Narayan Agarwal, Aged About 58 Years, R/o F-144, Virat Sadan, Goutam Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Home Department Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 2. Director General Of Police, Police Headquarter, Lal Kothi, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 3. Commissioner Of Police, Police Commissionerate Office, M.I. Road, Sardar Patel Marg, Ashok Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 4. Additional Dy. Commissioner Of Police, Police Commissionerate Office, M.I.road, Sardar Patel Marg, Ashok Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. C.P. Sharma, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Somitra Chaturvedi, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT Order 19/11/2025 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had a valid licence for sale and purchase of the fireworks, which was originally issued on 01.11.2004 and thereafter, same was renewed from time to time after undertaking inspection of the site of the shop. In the year 2020 again, Chief Fire Officer, Nagar Nigam, Jaipur vide its report and communication dated 22.09.2020 has [2025:RJ-JP:46767] (2 of 3) [CW-19316/2024] recommended the Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police, (Licensing and Legal), Jaipur for renewal of the license in favour of the petitioner. However, respondent No.3 vide its order dated 09.05.2024 (Annexure-5) has rejected the petitioner's application for renewal of the said licence. Challenging the said order, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the observations made in the said order dated 09.05.2024 are running contrary to the site report and recommendations forwarded by the Chief Fire Officer, Nagar Nigam, Jaipur Heritage and Greater Jaipur. The appeal preferred by the petitioner against the said order dated 09.05.2024, has also been rejected vide order dated 24.09.2024 in a mechanical manner without assigning any reason. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that as a matter of fact, it has come to the notice of the respondent- authorities that other two floors of the same building were being used for residential purposes and therefore, orders passed by the authorities are justified. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as a matter of fact, there was no basis or foundation available with the respondents to arrive at such finding. Because, as a matter of fact, the said building is completely vacant and site / shop in question is in complete compliance of the Rules / guidelines prescribed for the said purpose. Counsel for the petitioner also submits that copy of the said so-called subsequent report has not been supplied to the petitioner nor any opportunity of hearing is given to the petitioner to make his submissions regarding any such report. [2025:RJ-JP:46767] (3 of 3) [CW-19316/2024] Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the appropriate directions be issued to the respondent-authorities to undertake a fresh site inspection of the building in question and the same should be examined in light of the Explosives Rules, 2008. Learned counsel for the respondent does not oppose the said limited prayer so made on behalf of the petitioner. In this view of the matter, the orders impugned dated 09.05.2024 & 24.09.2024 are quashed and set aside. The present writ petition is disposed of with directions to the respondent- authorities to undertake a fresh site inspection of the building in question within a period of one month from today and to consider the request of the petitioner for renewal of his license strictly in accordance with the provisions of Explosives Rule, 2008 and to pass an appropriate order for renewal/non-renewal license of the petitioner. The entire said exercise shall be completed within a period of two months from today. The petitioner will be at liberty to make appropriate an application for the said purpose. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of. Stay application as well as all pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (SANJEET PUROHIT),J AVINASH GULERIA /65