[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
M/S Shiv Shankar Enterprises vs Union Of India on 13 April, 2026
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
[2026:RJ-JD:16095-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14098/2025
1. Bhagwat Singh Chauhan S/o Bheru Singh Chauhan, Aged
About 48 Years, 478-C Sector, Panchwati Ward No. 33,
Bhilwara, Po Bhilwara, Dist Bhilwara, Rajasthan - 311001
2. Jeevraj Sankhla And Company Through Proprietor And
Occupier Of Le-3, License Narendra Kumar Sankhla S/o
Jeevraj Sankhla R/o 1,495, Housing Board, Nagaur -
341001
3. Ms Mahavir Shivshakti Drilling Company, Through Partner
And Occupier Of Le-3 License Shri Radheshyam Jat S/o
Chitarmal Jat Aged About 43 Years R/o Hanuman Mandir
Ke Saamne, Gram Bhavna S, Bhaolas, Joravarpura,
Bhilwara, Rajasthan 311402
4. M/s Devnarayan Enterprises, Through Partner And
Occupier Of Le-3 License Sh. Kailash Chandra Jat S/o
Devi Lal Jat Aged About 29 Years, R/o Koshithlal, Jato Ka
Mohalla, Vtc Koshithlal, Po Koshithlal, Sahara, Bhilwara
Rajasthan - 311805
5. M/s Balaji Enterprises, Through Partner And Occupier Of
Le-3 License Sh. Shankar Lal Jat S/o Sheshmal Jat Aged
About 48 Years, R/o 30, Dev Narayan Mandir Ke Pass,
Merniya Khera, Kot, Merniya Khera, Bhilwara - 311803
6. M/s K K Nagda And Company, Through Partner And
Occupier Of Le-3 License Sh. Om Prakash S/o Devi Lal Jat
Aged About 33 Years, R/o Jato Ka Mohalla, Koshithal,
Koshithal, Bhilwara, Rajasthan - 311805
7. M/s Karni Enterprise, Hrough Partner And Occupier Of Le-
3 License Sh. Laxman Singh Barhath S/o Himmat Singh
Barhath Aged About 43 Years, R/o 148 Uganda Bass,
Khari Kallan, Khari Kalan, Polasani, Jodhpur 342027
8. M/s Shri Krishna Agency, Through Partner And Occupier
Of Le-3 Sh. Mahesh Kumar Ajmera S/o Roop Lal Ajmera
Aged About 45 Years, R/o 107, Kanchipuram, Bilwara,
Bhilwara, Rajasthan - 311001
9. M/s Divya Enterprises, Through Partner Sh. Kailash
Chandra Pancholi S/o Amba Lal Pancholi Aged About 47
Years, R/o Vishnu Mohalla, Palran, Palran, Bhilwara -
311803
(Uploaded on 15/04/2026 at 01:43:21 PM)
(Downloaded on 15/04/2026 at 04:44:31 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:16095-DB] (2 of 14) [CW-14098/2025]
10. M/s Shivam Explotech Private Limited, Through Director
Ratan Lal Jagetiya (Din-07359803) S/o Laxmi Lal
Jagetiya, Aged About 47 Years, Agalo Ka Mohalla, Bassi,
Bassi, Chittorgarh, Chittorgarh, Rajasthan 312022
11. M/s Nagda And Nagda Contractors, Through Partner And
Occupier Of Le-3 License Sh. Uday Jaat S/o Bhanwar Lal
Jat Aged About 25 Years, R/o 62, Nila Gear, Pachataron
Ka Khera, Palran, Bhilwara, Rajasthan 311803
12. M/s Devnarayan Enterprises, Through Partner And
Occupier Of Le-3 Kalu Lal Sharama S/o Narayan Lal
Sharma Aged About 48 Years, R/o 180, Bade Mandir Ke
Pass, Gadarmala, Gadarmala, Bhilwara - 311802
13. M/s Poonam Explosives, Through Partner And Occupier Of
Le-3 License Sh. Mushtaq Mohammad S/o Kamrudin
Mohammad Aged About 59 Years, R/o Ward No. 7,
Shorgaro Ka Mohalla, Deogarh, Rajsamand, Rajasthan
313331
14. M/s Sundar Explosives, Through Partner Rahul Jain S/o
Rajmal Jain Aged About 31 Years, R/o Ward No. 3, Main
Road, Simalwara, Dungarpur, Rajasthan - 314403
----Petitioners
Versus
1. Union Of India, Through Ministry Of Commerce And
Industry, Department For Promote Industry And Internal
Trade, Vanijya Bhawan, New Delhi - 110011
2. Petroleum And Explosive Safety Organisation, Through
Chief Controller Of Explosives, A Block Cgo Complex Fifth
Floor Seminary Hills Nagpur - (Maharashtra) - 440006
3. Joint Chief Controller Of Explosives, Hall No 502 And 507,
Level-5, Block B, Old Cgo Complex Nh Iv, Faridabad-
(Haryana) -121001
4. Deputy Chief Controller Of Explosives, Amrapali Road,
Near Power House, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur-(Rajasthan) -
302004
----Respondents
Connected With
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14477/2025
M/s Shiv Shankar Enterprises, C-164 Shastri Nagar, Bhilwara,
(Uploaded on 15/04/2026 at 01:43:21 PM)
(Downloaded on 15/04/2026 at 04:44:31 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:16095-DB] (3 of 14) [CW-14098/2025]
Rajasthan Through Its Partner, Shri Ajay Pal Singh Shekhawat S/
o Shri Mithu Singh Shekhawat, Aged About 38 Years, Resident Of
Borda, District Bhilwara, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Union Of India, Through Joint Secretary, Department Of
Promotion Of Industry And Internal Trade, Ministry Of
Commerce And Industry, Government Of India, New Delhi
- 110011.
2. The Additional Secretary, Department Of Promotion Of
Industry And Internet Trade, Ministry Of Commerce And
Industry, Government Of India, New Delhi - 110011.
3. The Chief Controller Of Explosives, Petroleum And
Explosives Safay Organization, Government Of India, A-
Block, 5Th Floor, Cgo Complex, Seminary Hills, Nagpur,
Maharashtra - 440006.
4. Joint Chief Controller Of Explosives, Bhopal Circle, Bhopal,
E- 7/77, 2Nd Floor, Lal Lajpat Rai Society, Near 12
Number Bus Stop, Area Colony, Bhopal, Madhyapradesh -
462016.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Tapendra Sankhla
Mr. Prakash Kumar, for
Mr. Lokesh Mathur
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vaibhav Bhansali, for
Mr. B.P. Bohra, Sr. C.G.S.C.
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHAH
Judgment
1. Date of conclusion of arguments 25.03.2026
2. Date on which judgment was reserved 25.03.2026
3. Whether the full judgment or only the
operative part is pronounced: Full Judgment
4. Date of pronouncement 13.04.2026
(Uploaded on 15/04/2026 at 01:43:21 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:16095-DB] (4 of 14) [CW-14098/2025]
Per Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J
1. The present batch of writ petitions involves common
questions of law and fact arising out of challenge to the
Notification dated 01.07.2025 and the consequential Circular
dated 09.07.2025 issued by the respondent authorities. For the
sake of convenience, D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14098/2025
(Bhagwat Singh Chauhan & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors.) is
treated as the lead case, and the facts are being referred
therefrom.
1.1. The instant D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14098/2025
(Bhagwat Singh Chauhan & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors.) had
been filed by the petitioners seeking, inter alia, the following
reliefs:
"It is, therefore, most respectfully and humble prayed
that the writ petition may kindly be allowed and;
i. By an appropriate writ, order or direction Impugned
Notification dated 01.07.2025 (ANNEXURE - P/1) may
kindly be held as arbitrary, violative of rights conferred
under Article 14 and Article 19.
ii. By an appropriate writ, order or direction Impugned
(ANNEXURE P/2) Circular dated 09.07.2025 may kindly
be set aside and held as arbitrary, illegal and violative of
Article 14 and Article 19;
iii. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, Petitioners
may kindly be allowed to lawfully utilise the existing stock
of electric detonator held under licence in Form LE-3.
iv. Any other appropriate order or direction, which this
Hon'ble Court considers just and proper in the facts and
(Uploaded on 15/04/2026 at 01:43:21 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:16095-DB] (5 of 14) [CW-14098/2025]
circumstances of this case, may kindly be passed in
favour of the petitioner.
v. Costs of the writ petition may kindly be awarded to the
petitioner. "
2. The petitioners are holders of licences in Form LE-3 issued
under the Explosives Act, 1884 and the Explosives Rules, 2008 by
the Petroleum and Explosives Safety Organisation (PESO),
authorising them to possess and deal in explosives, including
electric detonators.
2.1. The respondent No.1 - Department for Promotion of Industry
and Internal Trade (DPIIT), Ministry of Commerce and Industry,
Government of India, exercises powers under the Explosives Act,
1884. The respondent No.2 - Petroleum and Explosives Safety
Organisation (PESO), along with its field authorities, administers
and enforces the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed
thereunder.
2.2. The Central Government, in exercise of powers under Section
6(1)(a) of the Explosives Act, 1884, issued a notification dated
29.09.2023, providing for prohibition on manufacture, possession
and import of electric detonators with effect from 01.04.2025.
Subsequent communications were issued by the respondent
authorities from time to time, including letters dated 10.10.2023,
30.04.2024, 27.08.2024, 30.12.2024, 03.04.2025 and
21.04.2025, in relation to phasing out of electric detonators.
2.3. Thereafter, vide notification dated 02.04.2025, the date of
enforcement of the prohibition was extended to 01.07.2025.
(Uploaded on 15/04/2026 at 01:43:21 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:16095-DB] (6 of 14) [CW-14098/2025]
2.4. A meeting dated 27.06.2025 was held involving the
concerned authorities and stakeholders in relation to the phasing
out of electric detonators.
2.5. Subsequently, notification dated 01.07.2025 was issued,
whereby manufacture, possession and import of electric
detonators was prohibited with effect from 01.07.2025, with
certain specified exceptions.
2.6. Thereafter, a circular dated 09.07.2025 was issued by the
respondent authorities directing declaration and destruction of
existing stock of electric detonators held by license holders.
2.7. Subsequent notification dated 29.12.2025 reiterated the
prohibition and provided for certain exceptions in specified
sectors.
2.8. Further, memoranda dated 18.12.2025 and 30.12.2025 were
issued by the respondent authorities regarding compliance and
monitoring of destruction of electric detonators.
2.9. The present writ petitions have been filed challenging the
notification dated 01.07.2025 and the circular dated 09.07.2025.
3. Mr. Tapendra Sankhla, Mr. Prakash Kumar, for Mr. Lokesh
Mathur, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the
petitioners are not challenging the larger policy decision of the
respondent-Union of India to prohibit manufacture, possession
and import of electric detonators in the interest of public safety,
but are seeking a limited relief with regard to utilisation of the
existing stock lawfully acquired under valid LE-3 licences.
(Uploaded on 15/04/2026 at 01:43:21 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:16095-DB] (7 of 14) [CW-14098/2025]
3.1. It was submitted that the procedure adopted by the
respondents in implementing the prohibition is arbitrary and
violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, inasmuch as
different classes of stakeholders have been treated unequally
without any reasonable basis.
3.2. Learned counsel submitted that the manufacturers were
permitted to continue manufacturing electric detonators from
29.09.2023 till 30.06.2025 and were also granted extensions and
facilitation to scale up production and exhaust their stock. It was
further submitted that entities engaged in coal, oil and gas sectors
were initially granted time till 30.09.2025 for usage of electric
detonators, which has subsequently been extended till 31.12.2027
vide notification dated 29.12.2025.
3.3. Learned counsel submitted that, in contrast, the petitioners,
who are LE-3 license holders, have not been granted any
reasonable time to exhaust their existing stock and have instead
been directed to destroy the same, thereby singling them out for
adverse treatment.
3.4. It was submitted that Section 6(1)(a) of the Explosives Act,
1884 does not contemplate retrospective application, and the
impugned notification dated 01.07.2025, insofar as it affects
existing stock lawfully acquired prior to its enforcement, operates
in a retrospective manner.
3.5. Learned counsel submitted that the direction contained in the
circular dated 09.07.2025 for destruction of existing stock
(Uploaded on 15/04/2026 at 01:43:21 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:16095-DB] (8 of 14) [CW-14098/2025]
amounts to deprivation of property without authority of law and is
violative of Article 300A of the Constitution of India.
3.6. It was further submitted that the petitioners had lawfully
acquired the stock under valid licences issued by the respondents
themselves and after payment of applicable taxes, and therefore,
the respondents are estopped from directing destruction of such
stock without any provision for compensation, in view of the
doctrine of promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation.
3.7. Learned counsel submitted that the impugned action has
resulted in abrupt cessation of manufacturing and consumption
without any transition period or sunset mechanism, rendering the
same arbitrary and unreasonable.
3.8. It was submitted that in a similar situation concerning
prohibition of nitro-glycerine based explosives vide notification
dated 21.01.2004, additional time was granted till 01.12.2004 for
utilisation of existing stock, thereby indicating a consistent
regulatory approach of allowing transition.
3.9. Learned counsel further submits that controlled utilisation of
existing stock under the existing regulatory framework is
inherently safer than large-scale destruction, which itself involves
handling risks and safety concerns.
3.10. It was submitted that the petitioners were not consulted in
the decision-making process, whereas other stakeholders such as
manufacturers and large industries were consulted and
accommodated, thereby violating the principles of natural justice.
(Uploaded on 15/04/2026 at 01:43:21 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:16095-DB] (9 of 14) [CW-14098/2025]
3.11. Learned counsel submitted that no prejudice would be
caused to the respondents if the petitioners are permitted to
utilise the existing stock under regulatory supervision, whereas
irreparable financial loss would be caused to the petitioners if
destruction is enforced.
3.12. Learned counsel for the petitioners further placed reliance
upon the order passed by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in
Gujarat Explosive Dealers Association & Ors. vs. Union of
India & Ors. (Special Civil Application No. 10826 of 2025,
decided on 12.08.2025), wherein in similar circumstances
arising out of the very same notification dated 01.07.2025, the
Hon'ble Court took note of the fact that certain categories of users
were granted extended time for usage of electric detonators,
whereas similarly situated dealers were not extended such benefit.
It was submitted that the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, while
directing consideration of the representation of the petitioners
therein, specifically observed that the authority shall keep in mind
that "usage of electric detonators for certain categories has been
given more time than that of the time given to the petitioners"
and that the decision should be taken in a manner so as not to
violate Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
3.13. It was, therefore, submitted that in light of the aforesaid
judicial pronouncement, the petitioners herein are entitled to
similar consideration and grant of reasonable time to exhaust the
existing stock, so as to ensure parity and avoid arbitrary
discrimination.
(Uploaded on 15/04/2026 at 01:43:21 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:16095-DB] (10 of 14) [CW-14098/2025]
4. Per contra, Mr. Vaibhav Bhansali, for Mr. B.P. Bohra, learned Sr.
C.G.S.C. learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted
that the impugned notification dated 01.07.2025 and
consequential circular dated 09.07.2025 have been issued in
exercise of statutory powers under Section 6 of the Explosives Act,
1884, keeping in view overarching considerations of public safety
and national security.
4.1. It was submitted that electric detonators, being explosives of
sensitive nature, possess inherent risk of misuse and, therefore,
the decision to phase out and prohibit their manufacture,
possession and use is a matter of policy falling within the exclusive
domain of the executive.
4.2. Learned counsel submitted that the scope of judicial review in
such policy matters is limited and unless the decision is manifestly
arbitrary or violative of statutory or constitutional provisions, the
same ought not to be interfered with by this Hon'ble Court.
4.3. It was further submitted that adequate time was granted to
all stakeholders, including manufacturers and license holders,
from the initial notification dated 29.09.2023 till 01.07.2025, to
phase out electric detonators and to exhaust existing stock.
4.4. Learned counsel submitted that repeated advisories and
communications were issued by the competent authority directing
all concerned to plan and ensure exhaustion of stock well within
the stipulated time, and therefore, the petitioners cannot now
claim any vested right to continue possession or use beyond the
notified cut-off date.
(Uploaded on 15/04/2026 at 01:43:21 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:16095-DB] (11 of 14) [CW-14098/2025]
4.5. It was submitted that no fundamental right exists to carry on
trade in hazardous substances such as explosives, and such
activity is always subject to strict regulatory control in the interest
of public safety.
4.6. Learned counsel further submitted that the contention
regarding discrimination is misconceived, as the limited exemption
granted to certain sectors such as oil and gas operations was
based on operational and technical considerations peculiar to
those sectors and cannot be equated with general commercial
dealers like the petitioners. It was submitted that such
classification is based on intelligible differentia having a rational
nexus with the object sought to be achieved, namely, ensuring a
controlled and secure transition in critical infrastructure sectors.
4.7. Learned counsel submitted that the direction for destruction
of existing stock is a necessary consequence of the prohibition
imposed and is aimed at eliminating potential risk arising from
continued storage of such sensitive explosives.
4.8. It was further submitted that permitting continued use or sale
of existing stock would defeat the very object of the notification
and prolong the presence of hazardous materials in circulation.
4.9. Learned counsel also submitted that the reliance placed by
the petitioners on the order passed by the Hon'ble Gujarat High
Court is misconceived, inasmuch as the said order was passed at
an interim stage without entering into the merits of the
controversy and, therefore, cannot be relied upon as a precedent
to seek similar relief.
(Uploaded on 15/04/2026 at 01:43:21 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:16095-DB] (12 of 14) [CW-14098/2025]
4.10. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioners have not
demonstrated any legal right that has been infringed, and the
present petition is essentially an attempt to seek extension of time
on equitable considerations, which cannot override prohibition
imposed in public interest.
4.11.It was thus submitted that the writ petition being devoid of
merit deserves to be dismissed.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the
material available on record.
5.1. This Court observes that the core challenge in the present
batch of writ petitions is confined to the Notification dated
01.07.2025 and the consequential Circular dated 09.07.2025,
whereby manufacture, possession and import of electric
detonators has been prohibited and directions have been issued
for declaration and destruction of the existing stock.
5.2. This Court notes that the power exercised by the respondent-
Union of India emanates from Section 6 of the Explosives Act,
1884, which confers wide regulatory authority upon the Central
Government to prohibit or regulate manufacture, possession, use,
sale, transport, import and export of explosives in the interest of
public safety.
5.3. This Court finds that the impugned notification is a policy
decision taken in larger public interest, particularly having regard
to the hazardous nature of electric detonators and the potential
risks associated with their misuse. This Court further observes
that the prohibition was not brought into effect abruptly, but was
(Uploaded on 15/04/2026 at 01:43:21 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:16095-DB] (13 of 14) [CW-14098/2025]
preceded by the initial notification dated 29.09.2023, followed by
a series of communications and extensions, ultimately culminating
in enforcement from 01.07.2025. Thus, sufficient time was made
available to all stakeholders, including the present petitioners, to
regulate their affairs and exhaust existing stock.
5.4. This Court notes that the contention of discrimination raised
by the petitioners, on the ground that certain sectors such as oil
and gas industries have been granted extended timelines, does
not merit acceptance. This Court further observes that the
classification made by the respondents is founded upon an
intelligible differentia, inasmuch as the sectors which have been
granted limited relaxation, such as oil, gas and certain critical
infrastructure operations, stand on a distinct footing when
compared to general category licence holders like the present
petitioners. This Court notes that such sectors are intrinsically
linked with essential and continuous operations of national
importance, where abrupt discontinuation of the use of electric
detonators may lead to serious operational disruptions, safety
hazards, and cascading effects on energy supply and
infrastructure stability. This Court further observes that the grant
of extended timelines to such sectors is, therefore, guided by
operational necessity, safety considerations, and the requirement
of ensuring a smooth and controlled transition to alternative
technologies.
5.5. This Court thus holds that the distinction drawn between
such critical sectors and the petitioners, who are engaged in
(Uploaded on 15/04/2026 at 01:43:21 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:16095-DB] (14 of 14) [CW-14098/2025]
commercial dealing and distribution, is neither artificial nor
arbitrary, but is based on a rational assessment of differing
operational exigencies. The said classification has a direct and
reasonable nexus with the object sought to be achieved, namely,
phased elimination of hazardous explosives while simultaneously
safeguarding essential services and maintaining public safety.
5.6. This Court further observes that no vested or indefeasible
right accrues in favour of the petitioners to continue possession or
use of explosives beyond the date of prohibition, merely on the
ground that such stock was lawfully acquired under a licence.
Regulatory regimes governing hazardous substances are
inherently subject to change in public interest.
5.7. This Court finds that the petitioners have failed to
demonstrate any arbitrariness, illegality or unconstitutionality in
the impugned notification or the consequential circular so as to
warrant interference by this Court.
6. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court does not find
any merit in the present batch of writ petitions.
7. Consequently, the writ petitions are hereby dismissed. All
pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(SANDEEP SHAH),J (DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J
SKant/-
(Uploaded on 15/04/2026 at 01:43:21 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
