License renewal rejection based on general crime trends without specific adverse evidence is legally unsustainable.

The Petitioner, an Interstate Agricultural Cattle trader registered since 2016, sought a third renewal of his license for the period of 08.04.2025 to 07.04.2028

His application and subsequent review were rejected by the Additional Collector, Sakti, through communications dated 13.08.2025 and 09.09.2025

The primary reason for the rejection was a report from the Superintendent of Police (SP), Sakti, which stated that in view of the general increase in cattle-related offences, it would not be "appropriate" to renew the license

The Petitioner challenged these orders under Article 226, arguing that the rejection was devoid of cogent reasons and violated his right to livelihood without a fair hearing

1. Whether the rejection of a trade license renewal based on generalized societal crime trends, rather than the specific conduct or criminal record of the applicant, is legally sustainable

2. Whether the impugned orders passed by the Additional Collector suffered from non-application of mind and violated the requirement of passing a reasoned order

The Court exercised its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India regarding the judicial review of administrative actions

It applied the fundamental administrative law principle that authorities must pass "speaking and reasoned orders" and demonstrate an "application of mind" when affecting an individual's rights

The court reinforced that the right to earn a livelihood through trade cannot be curtailed by arbitrary state actions lacking specific adverse findings or valid legal grounds

The Court examined the correspondence between the Additional Collector and the SP. It noted that while the Collector specifically sought information regarding any criminal record against the Petitioner, the SP’s response failed to provide any such record

Instead, the SP’s non-recommendation was based solely on a general observation of "growing offences related to cattle" in the region

The Court held that such a general statement does not constitute a valid legal ground for the rejection of a specific individual's license renewal

It concluded that the Additional Collector's reliance on this vague report, without identifying specific allegations or misconduct by the Petitioner, proved a total lack of application of mind, rendering the orders arbitrary and unsustainable

It directed the Collector, Sakti, to reconsider the Petitioner's application and pass a fresh, speaking, and reasoned order within 15 days from the date of the judgment in accordance with applicable law

The writ petition was disposed of with instructions to the State counsel to ensure expeditious compliance