IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 1107 of 2008 (M/S) Sh. Pradeep Kumar Chaddha, aged about 43 years, S/O Late Sh. A.L. Chaddha, 108, Moti Bazar, Dehradun. …… Petitioner. Versus Union of India, Ministry of Commerce & Industry, Petroleum and Explosives Safety Organization, 63/4, A Wing, II Floor, Kendralaya (CGO Complex), Sanjay Place, Agra- 282002 and another. … Respondents. Sri V.K.Kohli, Senior advocate, with Sri T.C.Pande, learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri Vikas Pande, learned counsel for the Union of India-respondent. Date July 08, 2008. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. Heard Sri V.K.Kohli, Senior Advocate with Sri T.C.Pande, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vikas Pande, learned counsel for the Union of India-respondents and perused the record. This writ petition has been filed for issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the letters dated 19th March, 2008 and 12th June, 2008 (Annexure No. III and V respectively to the writ petition) issued by the respondents for shifting his shop to any other place. According to the petition, he is engaged in the business of fireworks since 1979 for which he hold a permanent licence for storage and sale of fireworks continuously since 1995 for the premises known as 108, Moti Bazar, Dehradun, issued by respondent no. 2. The licence was valid for the period 26th June 2007 to 31st March 2009 (Annexure No. 2). The grievance of the petitioner is that the licence was granted to him on the basis of no objection certificate obtained from the district authorities for issuance of licence for temporary shops during the festival seasons like Dussera/Deepawali. According to the petition, on 19-3-2008, the petitioner was advised to shift the shop to any other place. Learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the Collector has granted licence to Sri Mohan Lal at a distance of 20 Mt. Averment to this effect has been made in para 21 of the writ petition and copy of his licence has been annexed as Annexure 7 to the writ petition. The petitioner has also filed objection against the impugned notice, which is still pending. Therefore, it would be in the interest of justice that before cancelling the licence, the petitioner be herd by the respondent no.2. The respondent no. 2 is directed to decide the objection of the petitioner after hearing the petitioner. Till the decision on the objection filed by the petitioner, the licence of the petitioner shall not be cancelled. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of finally. (B.S.Verma, J.) RCP