Madras High Court
G.Vijayarajan vs The District Revenue Officer on 8 August, 2022
Author: C.Saravanan
Bench: C.Saravanan
W.P.No.18847 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 08.08.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN
W.P.No.18847 of 2022
and
WMP.Nos.18197 & 18198 of 2022
G.Vijayarajan ... Petitioner
vs.
1.The District Revenue Officer,
Master Plan Complex,
Nagapattinam Road,
Thiruvarur District.
2.The Tahsildar,
Nannilam Taluk,
Thiruvarur District.
3.M.Venkateshan ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the
records pertaining to the impugned order dated 17.03.2022 passed by the
3rd respondent and quash the same and consequently directing the 3rd
respondent to assess the petitioner's crackers shop situated at
S.No.124/7B, Kaduvangudi Village, Nannilam Taluk, Thiruvarur District
for making payment of the property tax .
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/10
W.P.No.18847 of 2022
For Petitioner : Mr.T.Mohan
Senior Counsel
for Mr.G.Mutharasu
For R1 & R2 : Mrs.C.Meera Arumugam
Addl.Govt.Pleader.
ORDER
The petitioner obtained a permission and an explosive licence from the first respondent on 24.02.2022 for putting up a cracker shop in survey No.127/B, Kaduvangudi village, Nanilam Taluk, Thiruvarur District.
2. The petitioner had sent a representation to the third respondent for assessing the property. The third respondent has on the other hand declined to assess the property tax vide impugned order stating that the petitioner has not obtained necessary permission from the third respondent and that the residents from the village and were objecting to the presence of the cracker shop in the village.
3. It is further averred in the affidavit, that on 05.04.2022, the third respondent and his supporters have protested and caused road block https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/10 W.P.No.18847 of 2022 and demanded closure of the petitioner's shop, pursuant to which, the second respondent herein namely, Tahsildar has ordered closure of the shop and taken away the key. It is submitted that the impugned order and the action of the second respondent is contrary to the fundamental rights of the petitioner i.e. right to carry on trade and commerce.
4. The petitioner suffered the above as early as 05.04.2022. However, the Writ Petition has filed only on 15.07.2022. Considering the above, interim relief was granted to the petitioner. The respondents were however directed to file a counter by next date of hearing. However, no counter has been filed. Learned counsel for the respondents have made submissions based on instructions received.
5. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner made an application for building approval with the authority under the provisions of the Tamilnadu Combined Development and Building rules, 2019, which has now replaced with Tamil Nadu Panchayat Building Rules of 1997. It is submitted that the application was filed by the petitioner at the time when the election to the local body had not been conducted and https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/10 W.P.No.18847 of 2022 therefore, it was the BDO who was acting as the E.O of the Panchayat. Reference was made to a request of the petitioner with the BDO Nannilam, Tiruvarur District. It is submitted that the BDO by his communication dated 13.03.2020 directed the petitioner to approach the Competent Revenue authority. Under these circumstances, the petitioner also approached the 1st respondent/ District Revenue officer to consider the application of the petitioner both under the provisions of the Explosive Rules, 2008 particularly, 101, 104 and 113.
6. It is submitted that the approval was granted by the 1st respondent on 24.02.2022, which was also counter-signed by the Tahsildar 21.10.2021. It is therefore submitted that the permission granted by the 1st respondent cannot be diluted by the 3rd respondent. He therefore submits that the shop which has been put up by the petitioner is not abutting any housing area and therefore on this score also there is no merits in the defence of the respondents.
7. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents . I https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/10 W.P.No.18847 of 2022 have also perused the documents filed in support of the present writ petition and provisions of the Tamil Nadu Combined Development Rules, 2019 and provisions of the Explosive Rules, 2008.
8. The competent authority for granting building permission is the Executive authority of local body viz., the elected president of the Panchayat. In this case, when the application was made, there was no elected body and therefore the BDO acted as the Executive authority of the said local body granted in principle approval and directed the petitioner to approach the first respondent. The petitioner had approached the BDO on 28.08.2019. An order came to be passed on 13.03.2020 by the BDO in its proceedings Na.KA.No.2666/2017/A1, wherein the petitioner was directed to obtain suitable permission from the competent Revenue authority namely, The District Revenue Officer. It is pursuant to the above, the petitioner also approached the 1st respondent who is incidentally the authority under the provisions of the Explosives Act, 1884 r/w Rule 101 of the Explosive Rules, 2008 deals with prior approval before construction. It reads as under:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5/10 W.P.No.18847 of 2022 Rule 101: Prior approval before construction:
1. A person desiring to obtain a license for manufacture, possession for sale, use, transport of explosives, under these rules, shall obtain prior approval from authority empowered to grant such licence, by submitting documents mentioned in Rule 113.
2. The District Magistrate while granting prior approval, shall return to the applicant one set of approval together with plans and Form DE-2 if required, showing distances required to be kept clear in and around the premises.
3. The Chief Controller or Controller while granting theprior approval, shall return to the applicant one set of approval together with plans and a Form DE-2 if required, showing distances required to be kep clear in and around the premises and an additional set of the said documents tenable the applicant to submit the same to the authority authorised to issue no objection certificate under rules 102 and 103.
4. Prior approval under sub-rule (1) shall not be necessary in case of licences for manufacture of Adivertus, transport of explosives in tractor compressor, possession in shops, public display of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6/10 W.P.No.18847 of 2022 fireworks and import and export of explosives.
5. No approval shall be granted for possession for use of explosives to a person or firm or society or company who is holding a licence for possession and sale of explosives or vice versa.
6. Nothing in the sub-rule(5) shall be applicable to magazines for possession for use and possession for sale located and attached to the explosives manufacturing factories.”
9. The approval was granted to the petitioner by the competent authority under the provisions of the Explosives Rule.101. It is thereafter, the petitioner has put up construction in terms of 104 of the Explosive Rules, 2008, which reads as under:
104: Commencement of construction of premises: On receipt of no objection certificate under rule 103, the applicant shall start construction of the premises or installation of the facilities:
Provided that in case of shops or storehouses or other premises, which are already constructed, no objection certificate may be obtained subsequently.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 7/10 W.P.No.18847 of 2022
10. Petitioner has also filed necessary documents for grant of approval under Rule 113 of Explosive Rule, 2008 which reads as under :
Rule 113: Documents for approval and grant of licence:
The following documents shall be required to be submitted for approval and grant of licence:-
Sl.No Purpose of Article Licence Documents Documents required
Licence number Form required for for grant of licence
as per approval
Part I of
Schedul
e IV
16 Licence to 5(c) LE-5 Not (1) Form AE-5
possess and necessary as
sale from a per sub-
shop, at anyone rule(4) of (ii) Plans of the shop
time, not Rule 101 showing storage
exceeding capacity, approach
2000 nos.of road, surrounding
pyrotechnic facilities specifically
device indicating
explosives of 6 compliance of sub-
division 1 rule (3) of rule 86
(iii) Paassport size
photograph of the
occupier alongwith
documentary
evidence of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 8/10 W.P.No.18847 of 2022 Sl.No Purpose of Article Licence Documents Documents required Licence number Form required for for grant of licence as per approval Part I of Schedul e IV nomination as occupier as per rule 2;
(iv) Licence fee as per Schedule IV, Part 2;
(v) Copies of
documents in support
of rightful possession
of premises
11. Thus petitioner having got valid licence based on the approval granted for the competent authority namely, the 1st respondent.
Therefore, there is no merits in the impugned order of the 3rd respondent. Under these circumstances, I am inclined to allow this writ petition and accordingly writ petition stands allowed. The 2nd respondent is therefore directed to de-seal the premises of the petitioner within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. However, liberty is https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 9/10 W.P.No.18847 of 2022 C.SARAVANAN,J.
kpr/kkd given for cancelling the permission in accordance with law. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
08.08.2022
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
Speaking : Non-speaking
kkd
To
1.The District Revenue Officer,
Master Plan Complex,
Nagapattinam Road,
Thiruvarur District.
2.The Tahsildar,
Nannilam Taluk,
Thiruvarur District.
W.P.No.18847 of 2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 10/10