IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2710 of 2008 MD.WASHIM Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Yogesh Chandra Verma, Sr. Advocate Mr. Javed Aslam, Advocate Mr. Satish Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the State : G.A.-8 05 02.09.2008 Petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 28.04.2005, passed by the District Magistrate, Siwan, by which he has cancelled the explosive licence of the petitioner. The said order has been affirmed by the Commissioner in Explosive Appeal No. 49 of 2005-06 dated 10.04.2006. State has filed counter affidavit. Petitioner has filed supplementary counter affidavit. With the consent of parties the writ petition is being disposed of at the stage of admission itself. On behalf of petitioner primarily two contentions have been raised. Firstly, it is submitted that Collector has erred in holding that the petitioner had no licence beyond 31.03.2003 that in fact, petitioner had a valid licence up to 31.03.2005 and he had sought renewal, thereof. In proceedings, whereof, the licence itself was cancelled. Secondly, it is submitted that even if the District Magistrate had the power to cancel the same could have been done without noticing or hearing the petitioner. Lastly, it was submitted that once the licence was granted for a premises and renewed from time to time, the District Magistrate was not competent to then suddenly hold that the premises was not proper as it was not subjective satisfaction of the Officer, but, the satisfaction had to be objective and based on statutory provisions. - 2 - So far as, the first ground is concerned, the District magistrate was clearly in error. Petitioner has brought on record by way of supplementary affidavit his original licence, which was valid up to 31.03.2003, having been granted on 14.11.2002. The said licence has renewal endorsement for the year 2003-04 and 2004-05 and that being so his application for renewal for the year 2005-06 was in order. Before passing such an order the Collector was well advised to look up his own records because renewal order and grant of renewal are duly recorded in official records. Coming to the second ground, I must state that licence to carry on business even in fire crackers is a fundamental right. Refusal to renew licence or cancellation of such a licence visits a person with grave civil consequences. No such action can be taken which had adverse civil consequences on a person without giving the person a chance to explain the acquisition. This is a simple principle of natural justice, failure to follow which renders the order void ab initio. In the present case, admittedly, while the renewal matter was pending not only renewal was refused but the licence itself was cancelled. To me, the procedure adopted is unknown to law, it is inviolation of principles of natural justice rendering the order void ab initio. Coming to the third ground, hereagain, I must observe that licence was granted after due enquiry, it was renewed for three years. It is not the case of the State that the premise was changed. It is surprising that a premises, which was found fit to be licensed for carrying on business and of storage of fire crackers for three years, how it could become unfit for such purpose in the fourth year. I may point out that it is not the subjective satisfaction of an individual Officer that is required, but, it is an objective - 3 - satisfaction. Objective satisfaction having been applied and licence granted merely on subjective views, the same cannot be subsequently cancelled. Thus, on all three grounds, the writ petition must succeed, consequently, the order of the Collector as affirmed by the Commissioner are both set aside and the writ petition is allowed. The Collector-cum- District Magistrate shall now grant renewal thereof, if there is no impediment in doing so. Trivedi/ (Navaniti Prasad Singh,J.)