Renewal of a valid explosives licence renders continued sealing of licensed premises unsustainable.

The petitioner held a licence granted on 26 September 2016 by the Deputy Chief Controller of Explosives, Bhopal, for possession and sale of fireworks from the concerned premises.

On 14 October 2024, the Tahsildar, Sabalgarh, accompanied by police personnel, locked and sealed the petitioner’s shop, endorsing “Illegal Explosive in Abadi Area” on the shutters.

The petitioner alleged that the action was taken without notice, a reasoned order, or an opportunity of hearing, and challenged it under Article 226 of the Constitution, also invoking Article 19(1)(g).

During the pendency of the petition, the Deputy Chief Controller of Explosives renewed the petitioner’s licence on 17 April 2026, permitting the petitioner to possess and sell fireworks up to 31 March 2027.

Both the Union and State authorities acknowledged the renewal and expressed no objection to appropriate directions for opening and de-sealing the premises.

Whether, in view of the renewal of the petitioner’s explosives licence, the continued locking and sealing of the licensed premises could legally be sustained.

Whether the respondents should be directed to remove the lock and de-seal/open the petitioner’s shop to enable him to carry on business in accordance with the renewed licence.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to compensation for loss of business and costs of litigation.

The Court exercised its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to examine the continued sealing of the petitioner’s business premises.

It considered the petitioner’s asserted right to carry on trade or business under Article 19(1)(g) and the principles of natural justice, namely, that adverse administrative action ordinarily requires notice and an opportunity of hearing.

The Court also applied the statutory licensing framework under the Explosives Act and the Explosives Rules, treating the renewal of the explosives licence by the competent authority as confirmation that the petitioner was permitted to continue the licensed activity, subject to compliance with applicable statutory requirements.

No judicial precedent was cited or relied upon.

The Court treated the renewal of the licence on 17 April 2026 as a material subsequent event going to the root of the controversy.

Since the competent explosives authority had found the petitioner eligible to continue the business and renewed the licence until 31 March 2027, and since neither the Union nor the State disputed the renewal, the continued sealing of the premises could not be justified merely on the basis of the earlier action.

The Court therefore concluded that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petition pending and that the sealing could not survive in light of the subsisting licence.

The order was confined to enabling the petitioner to operate in accordance with the renewed licence and applicable law.

Respondents Nos. 2 to 4 were directed to forthwith remove the lock and de-seal/open the petitioner’s shop or premises, if not already opened, so that the petitioner could carry on his licensed business in accordance with the renewed licence dated 17 April 2026.

The Court did not separately grant the petitioner’s claim for compensation for loss of business or any expressly recorded award of litigation costs.