Hon’ble Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, J.—Since the subject-matter of both these writ petitions and the issues involved therein are identical to each other, both are being disposed of by the following common judgment and order.

2. For convenience, the Writ Petition No. 16613 (M/S) of 2016 shall be treated to be the leading petition, and in the narration, which follows, facts of the said case shall be mentioned.

3. Heard Shri Shafiq Mirza, learned counsel for petitioners in both the writ petitions and Shri Kuldeep Pati Tripathi, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Shri Rajesh Verma, learned Standing Counsel representing the State respondents.

4. The petitioners in these writ petitions have challenged the validity of the decision of the District Magistrate/Licensing Authority cancelling the license to manufacture fire works and to process and sell the same from their shops. The petitioners have also challenged the appellate order passed by the appellate authority whereby, the appeal preferred against the order of cancellation of license have also been dismissed.

5. The petitioners are the manufacturers of fire works and they are also sellers of fire works from their shops. They were granted license in License Form No. LE-1 and LE-5 as described in Part 1 of Schedule IV appended with The Explosive Rules, 2008. The license granted to the petitioners was valid up to 31.3.2015. It appears that the place of manufacturing and the shop from where the petitioners of both these writ petitions have been operating are located in each others neighborhood.

6. On 15.3.2014, some incident was reported to have occurred in the vicinity of the petitioner’s shop and the manufacturing unit, in which certain casualties had taken place. The matter appears to have been reported to the District Administration and on asking of the District Magistrate, who is the Licensing Authority, a joint report dated 18.3.2014 was submitted by the Sub Divisional Magistrate and Circle Officer, Mohanlalganj, Lucknow on the basis of which licenses of the petitioners were suspended on 29.3.2014. The suspension order dated 29.3.2014 is on record as Annexure 3 to the writ petition No. 16613 (M/S) of 2016. In fact it is a composite order of suspension and a show-cause notice requiring the petitioners to submit their explanation as to why the licenses may not be cancelled. The show-cause notice dated 29.3.2014 makes a mention of the report submitted by the Joint Committee of the Sub Divisional Magistrate and Circle Officer, Mohanlalganj, Lucknow dated 18.3.2014. The said show-cause notice also mentions the gist of the report submitted by the Joint Committee of the Officers. However, no other material finds mentioned in the show-cause notice dated 29.3.2014. The petitioners submitted their reply to the show-cause notice which are also on record stating therein that petitioners have been manufacturing and selling the fire works in accordance with the requirement of the Rules and as such there was no occasion for the Licensing Authority to cancel the same.

7. The licenses of the petitioners have been cancelled by means of a purported order dated 18.9.2015 which has been annexed as Annexure 1 alongwith an affidavit filed in support of an application dated 11.5.2017. The said decision of the District Magistrate dated 18.9.2015 is not in the form of any order passed by him rather it only accords approval to the report submitted by three Officers namely Senior Assistant (Arms), In-charge Officer (Arms), and Additional District Magistrate (West), Lucknow. In the report dated 16.9.2015, on which only approval has been accorded by the District Magistrate, a mention has been made of the report submitted by the Chief Fire Officer on 15.9.2015. Based on the said report of the Chief Fire Officer, three members Committee in its recommendation dated 16.9.2016 has stated that considering the report submitted by the Chief Fire Officer, it is not safe to permit the petitioners’