SHAIKH ISMILE SHAIKH BABANversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH SECRETARY AND OTHERS

2026:BHC-AUG:37314-DB


                                                  1                        936.odt


                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                               BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                              WRIT PETITION NO. 2979 OF 2026
                              SHAIKH ISMILE SHAIKH BABAN
                                             VERSUS
                      THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
                                                 ...
                   Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Choudhary Deelip Janardhanrao
                      AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 : Ms. Preeti Diggikar
                                                 …

                                       CORAM : MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J.
                                       DATE : 18th AUGUST, 2026


              PER COURT :

              1.          Heard the learned Advocate for the Petitioner.

              2.          The present Writ Petition is filed against the judgment and

              order dated 26.12.2025, passed by the Divisional Commissioner,

              Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar, in Appeal no. 145/2025, dismissing the

              Appeal and confirming the order dated 21.04.2025, passed by the

              Collector, Beed, rejecting the Application for renewal of fire crackers

              license dated 22.01.2019, with effect from 31.03.2025. The Petitioner

              was running a business of fire crackers on the basis of license issued by

              the Competent Authority since 1975 and 1983-1984 onwards as per the

              license issued to him under the Explosives Act, 1884 and the Rules

              framed thereunder.
                                    2                        936.odt


3.          It is submitted that when the license of the Petitioner was

likely to be expire on 31.03.2025, the Petitioner filed an Application

before Respondent no. 3 well in advance in the month of December, 2024

and requested the concerned Officer to supply the prescribed form to

submit it for its renewal. The Petitioner has filed an Application on

05.03.2025, making a request that his license may be renewed as it has

been renewed from time to time.

4.          It is the contention of learned Advocate for the Petitioner

that after the Application was filed by the Petitioner, report was called

from the Superintendent of Police, Beed. After receiving the report dated

19.03.2025, the order dated 21.04.2025, has been passed cancelling the

license of the Petitioner, although the Application was filed for renewal

of license. According to the Petitioner, the said order has been passed

without granting him any opportunity to be heard, only on the basis of the

report of the Superintendent of Police. Being aggrieved by the said order,

the Petitioner filed Appeal before the Divisional Commissioner,

Aurangabad. However, even the said Appeal came to be rejected vide

order dated 26.12.2025.

5.          Learned Advocate for the Petitioner has drawn attention of

this Court to the observations made in paragraph no. 3, more particularly,

3.1 of the order, wherein it is observed by the Divisional Commissioner
                                      3                         936.odt


that the District Collector, while canceling the license has afforded an

opportunity to the Petitioner which is contrary to the record. The office

noting of the Home Department are placed on record which categorically

mentions that the opportunity of hearing is necessary to be given before

suspension or cancellation of license. In spite of such noting no

opportunity of hearing is extended to this Petitioner. TThe order has been

passed by the Collector on 21.04.2025, without granting any opportunity

to the Petitioner.

6.            Per contra, learned AGP appearing for the State submits that

on the basis of the report received from the Deputy Superintendent of

Police, Beed, and other relevant documents, the Authority i.e. the

Collector has to come to the conclusion that it is not advisable to renew

the license of the Petitioner and the same is liable to be cancelled,

considering    serious   irregularities   found   in   the   report   of   the

Superintendent of Police, Beed. There was likelihood of loss of human

life and other dangers if the license was renewed. The order is passed in

public interest.

7.            I have heard the learned respective Advocates appearing for

the parties and also gone though the orders passed by the Collector as

well as the Divisional Commissioner.

8.            Upon perusal of the office noting of the Home Department,
                                        4                              936.odt


it is evident that the Department was aware that an opportunity of hearing

is necessary before cancellation or suspension of license of an individual.

Accordingly, a noting is made that the license holder needs to be given an

opportunity as provided under Section 118 and Rules made under the

Explosives Act, 2008, which reads thus :

            “118. Suspension and revocation or cancellation of
            licence.

            (1) Every licence granted under these rules shall-

            (I) stand cancelled, if-

            (a) the licensee has ceased to have any right for the lawful
            possession over the licensed premises;

            (b) the licensee is convicted and sentenced under any criminal
            offences or ordered to execute under Chapter VIII of the Code of
            Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), a bond for keeping peace
            for good behaviour.

            (II) stand cancelled, if the no-objection certificate is cancelled by
            the authority issuing the same or District Magistrate or the State
            Government in accordance with rule 115.

            (III) be liable to be suspended or cancelled by an order of the
            licensing authority for any contravention of the Act or these rules
            or of any condition contained in such licence, or by order of the
            Central Government, if it is satisfied that there are sufficient
            grounds for doing so:Provided that before suspending or
            cancelling a licence under this rule, the holder of the licence shall
            be given an opportunity of being heard.

            (2) The suspension or cancellation shall take effect from the date
            specified therein.
                                        5                             936.odt

            (3) An order of suspension or revocation of a licence shall be
            deemed to have been served if sent by post to the address of the
            licensee entered in the licence.

            (4) The suspension of a licence shall not debar the holder of the
            licence from applying for the renewal.

            (5) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (1), an
            opportunity of being heard may not be given to the holder of the
            licence before his licence is suspended or cancelled in cases-

            (i) where the licence is suspended by a licensing authority as an
            interim measure for violation of any of the provisions of the Act or
            these rules or of any conditions contained in such licence and in
            his opinion such violation is likely to cause imminent danger to
            the public:

            Provided that where a licence is so suspended, the licensing
            authority shall give the holder of the licence an opportunity of
            being heard before the order of suspension is confirmed; or

            (ii) where the licence is suspended or cancelled by the Central
            Government, if that Government considers that in the public
            interest or in the interest of the security of the State, such
            opportunity should not be given.

            (6) A licensing authority or the Central Government suspending
            or cancelling a licence shall record its reason for so doing in
            writing.”

9.          Upon going through the said provision, it is evident that

before suspending or cancelling the license under this Rule, a holder of

license is required to be given an opportunity of hearing. The Petitioner

was already holding a license, which was sought to be renewed by

making an application for renewal. In such circumstances, when the
                                     6                         936.odt


Authority had come to the conclusion that the license needs to be

canceled, it was incumbent on the Authority to give opportunity to the

Petitioner by following principles of natural justice. The factual position

that opportunity of hearing is not given to the Petitioner is not disputed.

Therefore, considering the Rule 118 of the Explosives Act, the mandatory

procedure requiring the Competent Authority to grant opportunity of

hearing was not followed, which makes the order non est. Even while

deciding the Appeal, the Divisional Commissioner has wrongly

proceeded on the assumption that the opportunity of hearing was given to

the Petitioner, which is contrary to the noting of the Home Department.

Thus, in view of the irregularities in the proceedings the impugned orders

are required to be set aside, by remanding the matter back to the

Collector, Beed, to grant an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner.

10.           Hence, the Writ Petition is allowed by setting aside the order

dated 21.04.2025, passed by the Collector as well as order passed by the

Divisional Commissioner dated 26.12.2025.


11.           The matter is remanded back to the Collector for passing

fresh orders by granting opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner on its

own merits.
                                      7                        936.odt


12.            Apart from oral submissions, the Petitioner is also permitted

to place on record the documents which are necessary for appropriate

adjudication.

13.            With the aforementioned directions, the Writ Petition stands

disposed of.



                                      ( MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J. )




SPC