Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Howrah Ganatantrik Nagarik Samity & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 27 August, 2009
Author: Pinaki Chandra Ghose
Bench: Pinaki Chandra Ghose
1
01 27.08.09 W.P. 6377 (W) of 2007
Howrah Ganatantrik Nagarik Samity & Ors.
Vs
Union of India & Ors.
Re: An appln for vacating (CAN 7250/08)
AND
An appln for modification (CAN 7388/08)
AND
An appln. for modification (CAN 7673/08)
AND
An appln. for modification (CAN 8358/08)
AND
An appln, for Addn. of Party (CAN 9521/08)
AND
An appln. for Vacating (CAN 9536/08)
AND
An appln. for Modification (CAN 9631/08)
AND
An appln. for Modification (CAN 9635/08)
AND
An appln. for Addn. of Party (CAN 10822/08)
AND
An appln. for Modification (CAN 10825/08)
And
An appln. for Addn. of Party (CAN 690/09)
AND
An appln. for Intervention (CAN 2371/09)
AND
An appln. for Addn. of Party (CAN 5116/09)
And
An appln. for Addn. of Party (CAN 2424/09)
And
An appln. for clarification (CAN 2425/09)
And
An appln. for Intervention (CAN 5571/09)
And
An appln. for Extension of time (CAN 6022/09)
And
An appln. for Stay (CAN 6241/09)
And
An appln. for direction (CAN 6411/09)
And
An appln. for Addn. of Party (CAN 6610/09)
2
And
An appln. for Modification (CAN 6611/09)
And
An appln. for appro. order (CAN 7458/09)
Mr. Subhas Datta.
... Petitioner No. 2.
(in person).
Mr. Balai Ch. Ray, Ld. Adv. Gen.,
Mr. Sandip Srimani,
Mr. N. I. Khan,
Mr. Amlan Kumar Mukherjee.
... For the State.
Mr. Kallol Basu.
... For the WBPCB.
Mr. R. N. Bandopadhyay,
Mr. Subrata Dutta.
... For the Union of India.
Mr. Pantu Deb Roy,
Mr. A. Kumar.
... For the applicant
in CAN 7250 of 2008,
CAN 9521/08 &
CAN 9536/08
Mr. Rameswar Bhattacharyya,
Mr. Ram Uday Bhattacharyya.
... for the applicant
in CAN 7387 of 2008
&
CAN 7388 of 2008.
Mr. P. K. Chattopadhyay.
... for the applicant
in CAN 7673/08,
CAN 6610-11/09.
Mr. Pramit Roy,
Mr. Aditya Kanodia,
Mr. S. Mukherjee.
... for the applicant
in CAN 8358/08.
Mr. Sauvik Nandy.
... For the Applicant
(in CAN 2371/09)
Mr. Ashok Banerjee,
Mr. Saptangsu Basu,
Ms. Nandini Mitra,
Mr. Arabinda Chatterjee,
Mr. B. Nandy,
Mr. Sanjay Saha,
3
Mr. Prabhat Kumar Chattopadhyay,
Mr. Pramit Roy,
Mr. Aditya Kanodia,
Mr. S. Mukherjee,
Mr. D. K. Samanta,
Mr. B. P. Samanta,
Mr. Prasun Kumr Datta,
Mr. Pinaki Banerjee,
Mr. S. Bandyopadhyay.
... for the added respdt.
Mr. Anindya Mitra,
Mr. Biswarup Bhattacharyya,
Mr. Anil Dhar,
Mr. Sudhansu Kr. Sil,
Mr. Ashok Dhar.
... for IOCL.
Mr. Amitav Sukla.
... for BPCL.
Mr. Samrat Sen,
Mr. P. C. Paul Chowdhury.
... For HPCL.
Mr. Ajoy Debnath.
...For the Applicant
(in CAN 7458/09)
Learned Advocate General has placed on the
record the affidavit of the Chief Secretary to the
Government of West Bengal. In the affidavit it is stated
that our order dated 18th July, 2008 was to be
implemented by 31st July, 2009. The State Government
had been directed to take strict action in accordance with
law to ensure that all conversions were completed by 31st
July, 2009. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the State
Government has taken necessary steps. However, the
conversions are not being completed basically because
the Banks are unable to expeditiously dispose of the
applications being made. The learned Advocate General
also submits that the Banks are taking at least 2-3
months for scrutinizing the applications, which period
can well be reduced to a few days. This apart, even the
auto rickshaws which have been converted are unable to
run due to the unavailability of LPG. There are only 15
outlets in the city of Kolkata. The requirement is of at
least 50 outlets as at present.
Mr. Aninda Mitra, learned senior counsel
appearing on behalf of the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.
submits that the oil corporation is willing to increase the
4
number of outlets. However, the applications are being
rejected by the competent authority in view of the
objections raised by the Chief Controller of Explosives.
According to the learned counsel the applications are
being considered in terms of the norms that have been
laid down with regard to the categorization and safety
distances from the fill point/centre of tanker to the
various categories of structures as indicated in the
Circular dated 18th December, 2006. This Circular
provides the following distances:
Sl.No. Category Premises Distance
1.Category-1 Hospitals/Schools/ 50 mtrs. (most sensitive) Colleges/Old age homes /Child care centers
2. Category-2 Shopping comples/Multi 22 mtrs.
(med. Sensitive) story residential complex above G+4/hotels/ restaurants/sports halls/ swimming pools, other recreation fac8ilities and public utility facilities.
3. Category-3 Shops/residential 15 mtrs.
(Less sensitive) buildings not exceeding G+4 floors.
Learned counsel submits that almost all the outlets fall under Category-3 where the minimum distance required is 15 meters from shops/residential buildings etc. According to the learned counsel the aforesaid Notification has not as yet been incorporated in The Static and Mobile Pressure Vehicles (Unfired) Rules, 1981. In the aforesaid Rules, Rule 22 specifically deals with the location of pressure vessels and the minimum safety distance to be maintained. Rule 22 reads as under:
" 22. Location of pressure vessels - Each vessel shall be located with respect to the nearest building or group of buildings or line of adjoining property which may be built on and with respect to other vessels and facilities in accordance with the distances specified in the table below:
Sl.
No. Water Capacity of vessel (in litres) Minimum distance from line of adjoining property or group of buildings not associated with storage and operation Minimum distance between vessels 5 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
(i) Not above 2000 5 metres 3 metres 1 metre 1 metre
(ii) Above 2000 but not above 7,500 10 metres 3 metres 1 metre 1 metre
(iii) Above 7,500 but not above 10,000 10 metres 5 metres 1 metre 1 metre
(iv) Above 10,000 but not above 20,000 15 metres 7.5 metres 1.5 metres 1 metre
(v) Above 20,000 but not above 40,000 20 metres 10 metres 2 metres 1 metre
(vi) Above 40,000 but not above 3,50,000 40 metres 15 metres 2 metres or 1/4th of the 1 metre
(vii) Above 3,50,000 but not above 4,50,000 40 metres 15 metres Sum of diameter of adjacent 1 metre
(viii) Above 4,50,000 but not above 7,50,000 90 metres 15 metres Vessel or ½ the diameter of 1 metre
(ix) Above 7,50,000 but not above 38,00,000 90 metres 15 metres The two adjacent vessels 1 metre 6
(x) Above 38,00,000 120 metres 15 metres Whichever is greater 1 metre Learned Advocate General had suggested that the problem can be solved if the norms are relaxed by the competent authority. It was further submitted by the learned Advocate General that such requests have been made on a number of occasions to the competent authority in the meetings, details of which have been set out in the status report. However, the suggestions have not met with any approval from the competent authority.
We are of the considered opinion that in view of the submissions made by Mr. Mitra, as a matter of law it has to be observed that the Notification dated 18th December, 2006 can have no legal effect unless and until the same is incorporated under the statutory rules. That being so, we direct the Chief Controller of Explosives to consider the applications made by the oil companies for opening LPG outlets in accordance with Table 3 appended to Rule 22 of the aforesaid Rules. We also direct the Chief Controller of Explosives that any new applications that may be submitted by the companies shall also be decided within 14 days from the submissions of the applications in accordance with the directions issued above.
In order to facilitate the establishment of new sites in Kolkata, Howrah, Hooghly, 24-Parganas North and South the learned Advocate General has assured that the State of West Bengal will render all possible assistance to the oil companies not only for location of the sites but also for making the same available free from all encumbrances.
We reiterate our directions to the Banks which were given in the order dated 5th March, 2009. For ready reference we may reproduce the relevant directions issued on 5th March, 2009.
7" We are of the considered opinion that it is necessary to provide for a mechanism which would enable the loan assessment the process be reduced to shortest possible time frame. Preferably the application shall be processed within 7/10 days of the applications being received by the Bank. Such a procedure can only be adopted on a consensus between the State Government as well as the two of the aforesaid Banks."
Having taken into consideration the submissions made by the learned Advocate General and the averments made in paragraph-7 of the status report, we direct the Chairman/Managing Director of all the Nationalized Banks to issue necessary instructions to the loan sanctioning authorities to process/sanction the loans for purchase of auto rickshaws, taxis, buses and mini buses within a minimum period of ten days from the receipt of the applications.
We further direct that the sanctioning of the loan shall not be made conditional on the existence of the LPG centre within the locality of the applicants.
Adjourned to 5th November, 2009.
Re : CAN 9536 of 2008 In spite of our directions in the order dated 17th July, 2008 which is as follows :
" All registered auto rickshaws plying within Kolkata Municipal Area need to be converted into LPG or CNG mode by 31st March, 2009. Dual fuel option should not be permitted and accordingly Motor Vehicles Department should regulate their registration as auto rickshaws in Kolkata Metropolitan Area."
the State of West Bengal has been granting permission to retrofit the auto rickshaws through a cyclostyled order which is as follows:
"Sub: Permission for conversion of two stroke Auto- Rickshaw Manufactured after 31.7.2000 to single Mode LPG covered by a Permit No. DH-30 Ref: His prayer dt. 06-08-09 With reference to above this is to inform you that he is permitted to retrofit the vehicle No. WB-04/C-3054 by a Govt. approved Kit retrofitted by a P.V.D Licensed retrofitter for a single mode LPG with catalytic converter 8 within 7 (Seven) days from the date of receipt of this letter, and the vehicle so retrofitted will be produced before A.D. (Technical), P.V.D. for inspection. Further to note that plying of this said vehicle is strictly prohibited during this period."
We are of the opinion that the aforesaid order would be contrary to the directions issued earlier. Taking into consideration the observations made by the Court, learned Advocate General states that no further order of this kind will be issued and all auto rickshaws will be required to convert to LPG/CNG in accordance with the order passed by this Court on 18th July, 2008. The application is accordingly disposed of.
Re CAN 7388/09, CAN 7250/09,CAN 8358/08, CAN 6241/09, CAN 5571/09, CAN 9631/08, CAN 9635/08, CAN 10822/08 and CAN 10825/08.
Mr. Srimani, wants time to file affidavit-in- opposition to the aforesaid applications.
Let affidavit-in-opposition to the applications be filed within a period of four weeks from date; reply thereto, if any, be filed within two weeks thereafter.
Let the applications be listed for hearing on 5th November, 2009.
Mr. Srimani further submits that the applicants may be directed to supply copies of the applications to the State of West Bengal or any other affected parties. Order accordingly.
Xerox plain copy of this order duly countersigned by the Assistant Registrar (Court) be given to the learned counsel for the parties on usual undertaking.
(SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, C. J.) (PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J.) 9