Licensing authorities must identify missing documents and decide renewal applications promptly on merits.

The petitioners sought renewal of cracker-manufacturing licences or issuance of cracker-retail licences.

They alleged that, despite filing applications or representations and, in some cases, paying the requisite fees or rectifying discrepancies, the authorities had not acted on their requests.

The Court heard the parties and considered the records before issuing directions concerning further documents and decision of the applications.

Whether the first respondent should be directed to identify any further documents required to consider the petitioners’ licence applications.

Whether the first respondent should be directed to consider and decide the petitioners’ applications for renewal of manufacturing licences or issuance of retail licences.

The petitions invoked the High Court’s jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The Court cited no statute, precedent, or specific substantive licensing rule.

It directed the competent authority to process the applications, identify any further documents needed, and decide the applications on their merits and in accordance with law.

In view of the petitioners’ grievances that their applications or representations remained unresolved, the Court considered it appropriate to prescribe a short procedure rather than direct the grant or renewal of any licence.

It required the first respondent to notify each petitioner of any further documents needed, allowed the petitioners a week to submit them, and then required the authority to decide the applications on their merits and in accordance with law.

The Court did not itself order that any licence be granted or renewed.

No costs were awarded, and the respondents were not to insist on production of a certified copy of the order.