ORDER The first petitioner, it is stated is a partnership firm represented by partner, B. Damodar Bhandarkar while the second petitioner a proprietary firm of which one KS. Sunanda, wife of KS. Udaya Shankar, is the proprietrix and the third petitioner too a proprietary firm of which one KR. Paramjyothi is said to be the proprietor. It is the assertion of the petitioners that they are carrying on business, amongst others, trading in fire work and that the first respondent-Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike has issued Trade Licence Certificates, Annexures-G, J and L respectively. In addition it is stated that the Government of India, Department of Explosives has issued a licences, Annexures-H, K and M to each of the petitioner. It is alleged that the third respondent-Inspector of Police, Chickpet Police Station, is said to have received information from the Health Officer of the 1st respondent over the cancellation of the licences issued by the first respondent, subject-matter of W.P. No. 10248 of 2008, dismissed as having become infructuous by order dated 17-3-2009, Annexure-N and therefore the orders dated 8-9-2009, Annexures-A, Band C respectively, threatening the petitioner's of dire consequences if they carryon the business. Hence this writ petition. 2. It is not in dispute that none of the petitioners have secured a trade licence from the first respondent to carry on retail trade, in fire crackers, since Annexure-G Trade Licence Certificate is issued in the name of B. Damodar Bhandarkar and not B. Ganapathi Bhandarkar and Sons. Annexure-J-Trade Licence Certificate in the name of KS. Udaya Shankar reportedly dead and not in the name of KC. Sadashivaiah and Sons; and the Trade Licence Certificate, Annexure-L in the name of KR. Paramjyothi and not in the name of M/s. Jyothi Stores, the third petitioner. It may be that the licensing authority under the Explosives Act, 1884 has issued licences, Annexures-H, K and M to the petitioners to possess and sell fire works not exceeding 1,000 kgs. 3. Undoubtedly Annexures-A, Band C are issued by the third respondent, directing the petitioner not to continue the business. A perusal of Annexures-G, J and L, the trade licences, disclose that the 1st respondent has renewed the licences upto 31-3-2010 and if that is so they are valid and the licences are entitled to carry on the business, until the said date. A perusal of Annexures-G, J and L, the trade licences, disclose that the 1st respondent has renewed the licences upto 31-3-2010 and if that is so they are valid and the licences are entitled to carry on the business, until the said date. The third respondent-Inspector of Chickpet Police Station, has no jurisdiction to direct the petitioners not to carry on the business on the premise that the licences are since cancelled by the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike. Learned Counsel for the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike very fairly submits that it has not cancelled the licences which are in force upto 31st March, 2010. In that view of the matter the Health Officer of the 1st respondent was not correct in addressing the letter to the Police Inspector that the licences were cancelled. 4. However, learned Counsel for the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike, is correct in his submission that the licences, KS. Udaya Shankar issued with the Trade Licence, Annexure..J having departed from this World, the licence stands terminated automatically and therefore the second petitioner cannot be permitted to carry on business on the basis of the said trade licence. 5. Keeping aside the fact that the first and third petitioners firms are not issued with the trade licences by the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike, but as the licences stand in the name of one of the partners of the first petitioner and in the name of the proprietor of the third petitioner, I think it appropriate to allow the writ petition in part. In the result, the letters dated 8-9-2009, Annexures-A and C of the third respondent are quashed. The petition insofar as it relates to the second petitioner is dismissed.