JUDGMENT By Court: In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 9.6.2009 (Annexure-23) passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka whereby he has dismissed the petitioner’s appeal filed against the order of the Deputy Commissioner. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing the order dated 27.4.2007 (Annexure-15) passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar whereby he has cancelled the explosive licence granted to the petitioner in public interest. 2. The fact giving rise to the case is that the petitioner was granted lease by the State Government for quarrying stone. The period of the licence was 10 years commencing from 2.8.1999 with renewal clause. The lease was obtained with certain terms and conditions, which were incorporated in the lease deed. In the year 2003, the petitioner obtained license for using explosives for the purpose of mining stone. The license was granted by the Deputy Commissioner which was exclusively for the said purpose. The lease was with respect to 5 Acres of land of Plot Nos. 74-75 of Mouza – Suriya. In the year 2003, a decision was taken by the Central Government to establish a Navodaya Vidyalaya over 17 Acres of land of Mouza -Suriya. It has been alleged by the petitioner that construction of Novodaya Vidyalaya was started encroaching upon about 0.87 Acres of leasehold area of the petitioner. The petitioner objected to the same, but that was not heeded upon. Thereafter, the petitioner filed representation before the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar. The Deputy Commissioner directed the concerned Circle Officer to conduct an enquiry. The Circle Officer, after completion of enquiry, submitted a report on 17.9.2005. In the report, it was mentioned that 0.87 Acres of the leasehold area of the petitioner is under the boundary of the Navodaya Vidyalaya. In spite of the said report, the Deputy Commissioner did not take any action. Subsequently, the petitioner made representation before the Circle Officer and also filed informatory petition before the C.J.M, Deoghar informing about the alleged encroachment. In the meanwhile, the Novodaya Vidyalaya made complain before the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar that the petitioner is raising dispute over a part of the land of the school. On receiving such complain, the Deputy Commissioner issued a show cause notice to the petitioner asking him as to why his lease be not cancelled. In the meanwhile, the Novodaya Vidyalaya made complain before the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar that the petitioner is raising dispute over a part of the land of the school. On receiving such complain, the Deputy Commissioner issued a show cause notice to the petitioner asking him as to why his lease be not cancelled. According to the petitioner, he appeared and explained before the Deputy Commissioner that a portion of his leasehold area has been encroached upon by the Navodaya Vidyalaya. The petitioner has not raised any dispute, as complained by the Navodaya Vidyalaya. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that though there was a clear report of the Circle Officer about the encroachment over a portion of the leasehold area of the petitioner, the Deputy Commissioner, by the impugned order dated 27.4.2007, cancelled the petitioner’s lease on the ground that allowing mining in the vicinity by sue of explosive may be injurious and damaging to the school children and it will not be in the public interest. The petitioner, thereafter, challenged the said order in this Court in W. P. (C) No. 4353/2007. This Court, by order dated 3.10.2007, dismissed the said writ petition observing that the petitioner has raised several disputed facts in the writ petition and he has got efficacious alternative statutory remedy to prefer appeal against the impugned order of the Deputy Commissioner. The petitioner, thereafter, preferred letters patent appeal before this Court against the order of learned Single Judge being L. P. A. No. 1/2008. The said appeal was also dismissed upholding the observation as made in the order passed in the said writ petition. The petitioner, thereafter, preferred special leave petition in the Apex Court being S.L.P.(C) No. 3583/2009. By order dated 23.2.2009, the petitioner was permitted to withdraw the said petition with liberty to file an appeal before the competent authority. The petitioner, thereafter, preferred appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka being Misc. Appeal (Mining) No. 94/2009. Learned Commissioner, by the impugned order (Annexure-23), dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner. 4. By order dated 23.2.2009, the petitioner was permitted to withdraw the said petition with liberty to file an appeal before the competent authority. The petitioner, thereafter, preferred appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka being Misc. Appeal (Mining) No. 94/2009. Learned Commissioner, by the impugned order (Annexure-23), dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner. 4. In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the said order of learned Commissioner on the ground that the Deputy Commissioner as well as the Divisional Commissioner have not properly appreciated the valuable right of the petitioner and in spite of the report of the Circle Officer that a portion of the leasehold area of the petitioner has been encroached upon by the Navodaya Vidyalaya, the Deputy Commissioner arbitrarily cancelled the explosive license of the petitioner. The Divisional Commissioner has also erroneously upheld the order of the Deputy Commissioner. 5. Mr. Aparesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that once the lease was granted to the petitioner and the same was subsisting and the license for using explosives was granted to the petitioner in order to mine stones efficiently and properly, the licensing authority-cum-Deputy Commissioner has no jurisdiction to cancel the licence, unless there is violation of the terms of the license. Cancellation of explosive licence in public interest is beyond the terms of the licence and on extraneous ground which is not permissible. Learned counsel submitted that by doing so, the respondents have tried to legalize the thing which is illegal and have penalized the petitioner, who was holding a valid lease / license for his no fault. The Deputy Commissioner being in the charge of the affairs of the district, had to take action against the illegal encroachment of the petitioner’s land by the Navodaya Vidyalaya, but on the contrary, the Deputy Commissioner has taken arbitrary stand and has illegally cancelled the petitioner’s explosive license. Learned counsel submitted that the right to carry on business is guaranteed under Part-III of the Constitution of India and it was incumbent upon the competent authority including the Deputy Commissioner to prevent aggression and forcible encroachment of the petitioner’s rights by the Navodaya Vidyalaya. Learned counsel further submitted that the impugned orders warrant interference by this Court, as the same are violative of Articles 14, 19, & 21 of the Constitution of India and are wholly arbitrary and illegal. 6. Learned counsel further submitted that the impugned orders warrant interference by this Court, as the same are violative of Articles 14, 19, & 21 of the Constitution of India and are wholly arbitrary and illegal. 6. Learned counsel referred to and relied upon the following decisions of the Supreme Court in Automotive Tyre Manufacturers Assn. Vs. Designated Authority [ (2011) 2 SCC 258 ], Chairman, All India Recruitment Board and Anr. Vs. K. Shyam Kumar & Ors. [ (2010) 6 SCC 614 ], Nellimarla Jute Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Rampuria Industries & Investments Ltd. [ (2004) 13 SCC 448 ], Kewal Chand Mimani Vs. S.K.Sen [ (2001) 6 SCC 512 ], Tata Cellular Vs. Union of India [ (1994) 6 SCC 651 ] & Krishna Kishore Firm Vs. Govt. of A.P [ (1991) 1 SCC 184 ]. 7. The writ petition has been contested by the respondents by filing counter affidavit. It has been stated, inter alia, that the petitioner was granted license to use explosives for mining purpose within the leasehold area of the lease granted to the petitioner. It has been stated that the Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya has been established and a large number of children are studying in the said school. It is dangerous and unsafe to allow the petitioner to mine stones by using explosive materials in the vicinity of the said school. The same is also not permissible under Rule 164 of Metalliferrous Mines Regulation, 1961 as well as Clauses 20 & 23 of Part VII of the lease deed. It has been stated that the lease was granted for ten years, which expired in the year 2009. Now the lease is not subsisting. It has been submitted that the decision for cancelling explosive license has been taken in the public interest and in view of the danger to the children of the school and there is no arbitrariness and illegality in the impugned orders. 8. Learned J.C to A.G appearing on behalf of the State-respondents submitted that the lease might be with renewal clause, but it has not been renewed till date and for the present the petitioner has no subsisting right. 9. The respondent No.5 (Navodaya Vidyalaya) has also filed counter affidavit stating, inter alia, that there is absolutely no encroachment upon the petitioner’s land by the School and the claim of the petitioner is frivolous and baseless. 9. The respondent No.5 (Navodaya Vidyalaya) has also filed counter affidavit stating, inter alia, that there is absolutely no encroachment upon the petitioner’s land by the School and the claim of the petitioner is frivolous and baseless. The petitioner has unnecessarily raised the dispute over the land which belonged to the Navodaya Vidyalaya. 10. Mr. Md. Mokhtar Khan, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India appearing on behalf of the Union of India, submitted that it is the matter between the State-authorities and the petitioner and the Union of India is least concerned. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the facts and materials on record. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner was granted lease for a period of ten years, which expired in the year 2009. It is also an admitted fact that the license was granted to the petitioner for using explosive materials for mining stones in the year 2003. The petitioner has also brought on record the report of the Circle Office, which goes to show that according to the measurement taken by the Amin, 0.87 Acres of the petitioner’s leasehold area is within the boundary of the Navodaya Vidyalaya. 12. However, the fact remains that for the present the petitioner’s lease has expired and till date there is no renewal of the same. The writ petition is against the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner whereby the petitioner’s license for using explosive substance was cancelled. The license was granted for the purpose of mining stones from the leasehold area, the period of which has expired in the year 2009 and the purpose for which the licence of explosive was granted became nonexistent. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submitted that the application for renewal of the lease is pending before the competent authority and that the prayer made in the writ petition is relevant. 13. In my view, since the period of lease has expired and it has not been renewed till date, there is no justification for licence for explosive for an anticipatory purpose and on non-existent ground at present. 14. Further, there is no vested right to hold an explosive licence. It is subject to terms and conditions and legal provisions made therefor. The public interest also cannot be ignored, particularly, when it relates to the safety of lives of the children of tender age. 15. 14. Further, there is no vested right to hold an explosive licence. It is subject to terms and conditions and legal provisions made therefor. The public interest also cannot be ignored, particularly, when it relates to the safety of lives of the children of tender age. 15. The decisions referred to by learned counsel for the petitioner were rendered in different fact situations and the same are not applicable and relevant in context of this case. 16. The petitioner has alleged encroachment of land by the Navodaya Vidyalaya which has been denied by the respondents. Such disputed controversies on facts cannot be adjudicated upon and decided in writ jurisdiction. 17. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no ground made out to entertain this writ petition. 18. This writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. 19. However, it is open for the petitioner to take step and seek appropriate remedy regarding renewal of lease or for enforcing/ protecting any legal right in accordance with law. Petition dismissed.