Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Petitioner in these writ petitions is the owner of a quarry.

2. Insofar as W.P.(C).33289/2009 is concerned, Ext.P3(f) is an application made by the petitioner for obtaining an NOC under provisions of the Explosives Rules. Accordingly, Ext.P1 NOC was issued to him. Based on that NOC, he was issued a licence in Form-22 of the Explosives Rules.

3. It is stated that thereafter respondents 3 and 4 filed complaints against the issuance of NOC which led to Ext.P2 order withdrawing the NOC, till the magazine established by the petitioner for storing explosives is shifted by a distance of 15 metres from the boundary of the 4th respondent's property. According to the petitioner, magazine was shifted and on reporting the said fact, by Ext.P3 order, the NOC was restored to him.

8. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that this Court having found in Ext.P6 judgment that the NOC has been issued under the Explosives Rules 1983, the District Collector has no power to issue an order in the nature of Ext.P9. It is also contended that even if it is assumed that the District Collector has the power to issue the order, that power has to be exercised in the manner as provided only in Rule 115 of the Explosives Rules, 2008 and that none of the grounds available in Rule 115 are not made out in Ext.P9.

9. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader and the learned counsel appearing for respondents 3 to 5 contradicted the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. According to the learned counsel for the party respondents, pursuant to Ext.P6 judgment, when notice of hearing was issued, Exts.R3(g), (h) and (i) were filed by respondents 3 to 5. It is stated that they had also produced several documents including Exts.R3(b) and R3(d) and that ignoring all the materials  W.P.(C)s.33289 & 25437/09 available, ADM passed Exts.P7 and P8. According to them, aggrieved by Exts.P7 and P8, they moved the District Collector and the District Collector, being satisfied of the genuineness of the complaint, interfered in the matter exercising the power under Rule 115 of the Explosives Rules, 2008. On this basis, learned Government Pleader and the learned counsel for the party respondents sought to sustain Ext.P9.

10. In this case, the only issue that arises for consideration is regarding the sustainability of Ext.P9, the order passed by the District Collector requiring the petitioner not to continue quarrying operations and to maintain status quo until the enquiry is completed. The first contention that the District Collector is incompetent to issue such an order, has been raised on the basis that Ext.P1 NOC was issued under the Explosives Rules, 1983 and that under 1983 Rules, no such power has been conferred on the District Collector. Learned counsel sought to rely on paragraph 11 of Ext.P6 judgment in support of his contention. However, as is evident from paragraph 11 of Ext.P6 judgment itself, this Court has held that Ext.P1 NOC issued to the petitioner was long prior to the introduction of  W.P.(C)s.33289 & 25437/09 2008 Rules and that when NOC is restored, the same will be governed by the 1983 Rules also. By this, this Court did not intend or mean that irrespective of the fact that 2008 Rules had replaced 1983 Rules, parties will be governed by 1983 Rules for all time to come. Necessarily, once the NOC is restored and as 2008 Rules had come into force, future conduct of the licence will have to be governed by 2008 Rules. If that be so, Rule 115 of the Rules confers power on the authority who issued NOC, as also the District Magistrate or the State Government. Necessarily the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the District Collector has no power to issue Ext.P9 is only to be rejected.